Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Mr. Percival: I beg leave to present the humble Petition of Noel Haydn Batten and Laura Batten, who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), precluded. he feels, by Ministerial office from himself presenting the Petition. It is supported by 58,650 signatures. The
Petitioners pray to Parliament, deploring the constant use of bad language on television, the persistent misrepresentation of sex and sexual relations, resulting in both short and long-term damaging effects to family interests, and requesting Parliament to take effective measures to curtail these excesses.
Amongst other material allegations, the Petition calls attention to the damage to family life by television programmes containing matter of a highly objectionable and distasteful character, by the portrayal of situations which misrepresent sexual relations, by the conditioning of viewers' minds into accepting lowered speech and moral standards and by the intolerable position into which parents are placed when their children view behaviour and hear language from well-known television personalities which their parents have taught them to be wrong.
The Petition concludes with the respectful statement that the Petitioners
as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Abortion Act, 1967 (Offences)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to report to the General Medical Council each case where a medical practitioner is found guilty of an offence under the Abortion Act, 1967, for failure to notify an operation to his Chief Medical Officer.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): My Chief Medical Officer will inform the General Medical Council of any conviction of a medical practitioner for an offence under the Abortion Act of which he becomes aware.

Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be generally welcomed but that there was a particular case to which I drew his attention in which this happened? Is he saying that his Chief Medical Officer was unaware of this? If so, will he have words with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about co-ordination so that his Department is aware of cases in which doctors are convicted?

Sir K. Joseph: It was as a result of a special check made by my Chief Medical Officer that the particular case to which the hon. Member refers came to light, and it is as a result of that that my Chief Medical Officer and I have evolved the new procedure to which I have referred.

Regional Hospital Boards (Expenditure)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions his Department is to have with regional hospital boards as to the spending on hospital facilities of the moneys announced by him on 22nd November.

Sir K. Joseph: The extra capital which I announced on 22nd November will be discussed in the normal manner between boards and my Department. The manner in which the extra revenue is spent is, within general priorities of which boards are aware, a matter for the individual


hospital authorities to decide.—[Vol. 826, c. 957–64.]

Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he give encouragement to hospitals to spend this money on projects which will be of benefit to patients? I am thinking in particular of transport facilities to take patients out of the hospital environment in which so many have to spend so many years of their lives. This is the kind of project that is urgently needed, and encouragement from the Minister would be welcomed by hospitals and patients.

Sir K. Joseph: At first hearing it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman's sensible idea is one that he might suggest to the local League of Friends. I have already told hospital authorities my own priorities, which inevitably must be limited if they are to be effective.

Junior Hospital Doctors (Conditions of Service)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to reduce the number of hours worked a week by junior hospital doctors.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reduce the number of hours stipulated as normal in a working week for a junior hospital doctor from 100 and thus extend the payment for overtime pay.

Sir K. Joseph: I have asked hospital authorities to do all they can, by improved organisation of medical work and in other ways, to reduce the long hours on duty and on call undertaken by many junior doctors. Extra-duty payments are related not to a normal working week but to minimum off duty time.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present average of 88 hours a week worked by junior hospital doctors, as has been found in a recent report, can lead to low morale, inefficiency and even danger to patients? Will he therefore take steps to introduce a 40-hour week as recommended in the same report?

Sir K. Joseph: The report to which the hon. Lady refers is by now a little out of date, and I do not think we can be sure of the figures. I have therefore asked

hospital authorities to make a return to me of the hours worked by, and other relevant details about, junior hospital doctors. I hope to receive this information during the coming year and to make use of it in guidance.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman cut across the British Medical Association and got into direct communication with the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association on questions such as this? Would he try to do away with the problem involved in the system of on-call being regarded as one task and the actual hours of work another? Is it not ridiculous that they get no payment until they have been on call or on duty for 100 hours?

Sir K. Joseph: These are complicated issues. I have no reason to think that I am not getting the full facts, but I need more information. This is why I have sought it from the hospitals in the way I have described.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can give him evidence of doctors who are working 110 hours a week, who in some cases work 36 hours consecutively without going to bed, and who in such circumstances unfortunately can make serious mistakes? Is he further aware that the hospital involved could have advertised for additional staff but refused to do so, and therefore has not helped to reduce the shortage of staff, because it says that it has not enough money to cope with the situation?

Sir K. Joseph: There is an infinite range of situations. It would help if the hon. Gentleman sent me details. I hope that hon. Members will not describe as "at work" what is in effect a combination of being at work and on call. I do not minimise the importance of being on call, but it is not the same.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of a recent report which showed that an average of 88 hours a week was being worked by junior hospital doctors.

Sir K. Joseph: I think the hon. Lady is referring to the report which I have in my hand, which was carried out by the consultant division of my Department and which relates to three years ago.

Dr. Summerskill: No.

Sir K. Joseph: Then perhaps the hon. Lady will send me details of what she has in mind.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will establish a committee of inquiry into the salaries and conditions of service of junior doctors.

Sir K. Joseph: An independent Review Body advises the Government on the remuneration of all doctors. Conditions of service are under continuous review by a joint negotiating committee consisting of representatives of the Health Departments and of the Negotiating Sub-Committee of the Central Committee for Hospital Medical Services, which includes representatives of junior doctors. I see no need for a new committee of inquiry.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that some consultants treat their housemen as shopkeepers in the 18th century treated their apprentices, and that there is need to ask the junior doctors themselves about the conditions under which they work rather than to ask the hospital authorities? Is he further aware that the remuneration paid to housemen is absolutely disgusting when compared with the remuneration of the consultants?

Sir K. Joseph: Of the 18 members of the Central Committee for Hospital Medical Services, four are from the Hospital Junior Staffs Group, and I expect that they make their voice fully heard on that committee.

Mammography Screening Services

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to extend the mammography screening services available to National Health Service patients.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): An expert committee on breast cancer screening is looking into the question, but there is no mammography screening service in this country at present and there are no plans to introduce one.

Dr. Stuttaford: I am afraid that I regard that answer as very unsatisfactory

because there is, in fact, a screening system operating in this country. It is a private service and works very effectively. I know this from personal experience since I have worked in it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a question?

Dr. Stuttaford: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is coming up. Is my hon. Friend aware that x-ray screening for cancer breast has proved extremely effective in New York, and that studies made in this country show that carcinoma of the breast can be detected by using x-ray mammography before it can actually be felt? Is he further aware that this service in this country is confined entirely to those who are rich enough to pay, and does he not agree with me that it should be extended to the National Health Service?

Mr. Alison: I am very glad to have been made aware by a rhetorical question of my hon. Friend's own private service in this matter. We have set up an expert committee to study mammography whose terms of reference include advice on whether we should set up a pilot service.

Whitley Councils

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when was the functioning of Whitley Councils for the National Health Service last reviewed; and, in particular, what conclusions were arrived at concerning Professional and Technical Council B and committees.

Sir K. Joseph: The functioning of the Whitley Councils and their committees is a matter for the two sides; no big change has been made recently in the Professional and Technical B Council.

Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is intense dissatisfaction among hospital technicians about the present so-called negotiating machinery, and that only yesterday negotiations broke down on a claim launched in 1968 for parity between cardiology technicians and physics technicians? Therefore, will he undertake to inquire into these matters with a view to introducing genuine, free, collective bargaining?

Sir K. Joseph: There would be even more intense dissatisfaction if a Minister unilaterally were to start interfering with negotiating arrangements of staff sides.


Therefore, I must leave it to the staff sides to sort out their own relationships.

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the intense dissatisfaction among the medical laboratory technicians, of which we have all had evidence. He will also be aware that dissatisfaction with Whitley Council machinery goes wider than the Professional and Technical Council B. Is he not being pressed to set up an independent inquiry into the whole functioning of the Whitley Council machinery? If he is, how can he dismiss the matter so lightly?

Sir K. Joseph: May I first say that I welcome the right hon. Lady back to her old interests on the Front Bench. On the wider question, much dissatisfaction has been expressed about the working of the Whitley Council machinery, but I am not at all clear about any way in which to make any decisive change. The question before me is about one particular council where there has been a running conflict about the representation on the staff side, and that must remain for the staff side to settle.

Attendance Allowance

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to amend the regulations governing the attendance allowance to include those who are so severely disabled as to need constant attendance night or day instead of night and day; if he will estimate how many additional people would become eligible; and what would be the extra cost.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now set up a study of the payment of the new attendance allowance to the severely disabled in order to decide whether to amend the criteria for payment in order to give help to more of the disabled.

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the unsuccessful applicants for an attendance allowance he estimates were refused because of the requirement that they must need repeated or prolonged attendance during the night as well as constant attendance during the day.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what

estimate he has made of the attendance allowance applications which have been turned down because of the day and night regulations; what representations he has received on this subject from the Disablement Income Group; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will amend the forms for the claim for attendance allowance for the chronically sick and disabled so that the categories of patients who may obtain benefit will be widened.

Sir K. Joseph: Up to 14th December about 24,000 of those who had claimed attendance allowance had failed to qualify because they did not satisfy the medical requirements. No information is available about how many did so because they need attention only during the day.
As to extension, I cannot add to my reply to similar Questions on 30th November. Up to 250,000 further disabled people might qualify for the allowance if the present statutory requirements were amended to relate to attendance by day or by night instead of by day and by night together, at a cost which would depend on the rate of allowance which might be paid in such circumstances. I have just received general representations from the Disablement Income Group about widening the scope of the allowance.—[Vol. 827, c. 235–8.]

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of people will be grateful for the attendance allowance and, since this is a time for good will to all men, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman can claim credit for that and that I thank him for it? Is he also aware that at the time these regulations were passed there was a feeling that this was in the form of an experiment and that many of us, in the light of this experiment, have become distressed at the way in which many disabled people have been left outside the regulations? Is he further aware that my Question asks the parliamentary draftsman to change only one word and that that one word will be a whole volume of well being for the disabled?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Government were very glad to have the opportunity to put into legislation an idea which the previous Government had and to bring into payment to large numbers of people a benefit


which we all welcome. However, it was inevitable, and was always made plain, that we should have to tackle this new and large job in stages. Whenever matters are tackled in stages, there are always hard cases. I ask the House to draw comfort from the fact that in addition to 50,000 awards already made, which is as many as we anticipated, there are a further 40,000 claims yet undecided.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Attendance Allowance Board to submit a report containing its recommendations on ways in which the regulations might be varied in order to include a substantial number of severely disabled people, most of whom would be included if the regulations could be amended?

Sir K. Joseph: As soon as the Government have made an appraisal of the implications of the next step, both for timing and for money, I shall be delighted to invite the Attendance Allowance Board to submit a report.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware how grateful hon. Members are for his replies, but will he consider the situation of very badly disabled people who need constant attendance? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many able-bodied men and women cannot go out to work because they have to spend all their time looking after disabled people and that, if the right hon. Gentleman modified the regulations to say "day or night", it would lead to considerable savings for his Department? Will he reconsider this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I fear that I cannot. We are tackling this matter in stages. When the next stage comes, it will take on board a larger number, including those to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. But if any hon. Member knows of cases which he considers satisfy the day and night qualification, but which have been refused, I beg him to advise his constituents to apply to the Attendance Allowance Board for a review.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a much fairer system would result if the form were slightly modified? My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at the moment, one has to put a tick by a group of complaints. This means that the general practitioner has

to say whether the person concerned is or is not in a certain position, and no variation is allowed. Will my right hon. Friend consider amending the form so that less allowance is made for the kindliness of the general practitioner and more instruction is given from the centre?

Sir K. Joseph: Ministers are always a little threatened by coalitions of the kind that there is on this subject. Subject to the general unwillingness of the Government to bring in stage two until the time is ripe in terms of availability of finance, knowledge and machinery, I shall gladly discuss my hon. Friend's point with the Attendance Allowance Board.

Mr. Ashley: While we appreciate the difficulties and the limitations imposed by the Treasury, surely the time is now ripe for the removal of this unreasonable condition? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me a categorical assurance that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see this condition removed now and the attendance allowance given to those who require attendance during the day or the night?

Sir K. Joseph: Of course I understand and share this attitude. But hon. Members will recognise that, gradually, we have dealt with, and are dealing with, the most desperately urgent cases first. The next stage, when it comes, will bring in a lot more.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a strong and compelling case, supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, for some widening of the regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish his reply to the Disablement Income Group and make a further statement to the House at the earliest possible date?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall remain under questioning on this subject. Certainly I undertake to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my reply to the Disablement Income Group.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the latest total number of applications for attendance allowance and the number of the applications allowed, particularly in the regions and areas of low family income; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. Up to 14th December some 115,000 claims had been received and, out of the 74,000 completely dealt with by that date, just over 50,000 had been allowed, including those allowed on review. I will, with permission, circulate regional details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he explain how his Department can be satisfied with those figures when, apparently, it does not know what the figures are on a county basis and, in fact, has refused to provide such figures? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if this analysis of applications were made, it would be a much fairer way of assessing the problem? Does he agree, further, that if these figures were available they would also be helpful to the social services departments of the county councils in their attempts to identify the disabled?

Sir K. Joseph: We have to balance the cost of requiring information and confidentiality of those who receive benefits against the wider use which might be made of more detailed knowledge. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the regional analysis given today will, I think, come fairly close to giving information about county performances.

Following is the information:


Region
Number of claims received up to 14th December approximately
Number of applicants who, at the initial stage, were found to satisfy the medical conditions


Northern
7,500
3,800


Yorkshire and Humberside
10,200
4,700


East Midlands and East Anglia
11,000
6,400


London North
9,500
4,000


London South
12,600
6,200


London West
10,000
4,400


South Western
8,500
3,400


West Midlands.
9,000
3,800


North Western (Manchester)
8,500
3,700


North Western (Merseyside)
8,600
4,100


Scotland
10,000
4,000


Wales 
9,600
3,500


TOTALS
115,000
52,000*


* There is inevitably some time lag between the medical conditions being found to be satisfied and an award actually being made to a claimant.

Benefits (Application Forms)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Social Service what steps he is now taking to simplify the claiming of benefits by possible reductions in the number of forms and in other ways.

Sir K. Joseph: I announced on 13th May, 1971, that discussions were being held with local authority associations on the feasibility of using a single claim form for a wide range of benefits. In addition, we have extended the use of the "passport" principle from supplementary benefit to the new family income supplement.—[Vol. 817, c. 154–5.]

Mr. Lane: On top of the many improvements in the social services already made by the Government during their first 18 months in office, will my right hon. Friend accept that any further simplification of the claiming machinery will be welcomed by many people as another major step forward? Will my right hon. Friend pursue this matter if he finds it possible to do so?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, certainly. The previous Administration initiated the preliminary studies for a single claim form covering a number of benefits. This Government have opened discussions with the local authority associations and, during the coming year, with the help of the local authority associations, I hope to be able to start a pilot experiment.

Four-Week Rule

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the current unemployment figures, he will now suspend the four-week rule whereby persons deemed not to be seeking work may have their benefit stopped.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): No, Sir. The rate of unemployment varies throughout the country, so in areas where the Department of Employment advise that unskilled work can be obtained without difficulty the arrangements for allowances initially limited to four weeks continue. These areas are under constant review.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel, however, that with more


than 922,000 people currently unemployed, his officers would be far better employed trying to help unemployed people with their financial and other problems than hounding them in the way in which they are being hounded at present?

Mr. Dean: The rule does not operate in any of the offices in the Northern, Yorkshire and Humberside, and two North-Western Regions of England, or in Scotland and Wales. Where it operates, it applies only to the fit, single person under 45 years of age.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: While the unemployment figures are deeply worrying, cannot some comfort be drawn from the fact that the number who have been unemployed for more than six months has not risen to anything like the same extent?

Mr. Dean: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that true fact.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister has read out a list of areas which are exempt. Why does the rule apply to Bolsover?

Mr. Dean: It applies only in the areas where jobs are available. In those areas, if at the end of four weeks a person has not been able to find work and is genuinely eligible for work, he still gets his allowances.

Invalid Vehicle Service

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to announce the result of the review of the invalid vehicle service.

Mr. Alison: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 16th December.—[Vol. 828, c. 186–7.]

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend will recall our correspondence about a constituent of mine who is unable to follow his usual occupation because he requires a certain minimum temperature which is not provided by the present vehicle heater. It may be that by means of greater flexibility in the rules or in the design of the vehicle, which would enable people to work who are not able to do so at

present, there would be no extra expenditure necessary from Government funds.

Mr. Alison: Flexibility of both kinds is under consideration in the review.

Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend, in making the promised announcement, to ensure that, at the least, it covers the three special categories of haemophiliacs, disabled mothers and disabled passengers, whose case was pressed with the Prime Minister a day or two ago by a deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris)? I understand that the announcement is promised for the New Year. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that it will not be made during the parliamentary Recess?

Mr. Alison: I can certainly reassure the right hon. Lady about the last question. The deputation was led jointly by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). The points about which the right hon. Lady seeks a pre-emptive statement will certainly be considered, but it would be improper for me to comment upon them before an announcement is made to the House.

Mr. Marten: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there has been a considerable slippage in the announcement of the timing of this review and, as it is rumoured that Government changes are in the air, can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if he is promoted, deservedly, to higher office, his replacement will not start all over again?

Mr. Alison: I shall endeavour, wherever I move, to take the interests of the invalid vehicle service with me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministers must address the Chair. Then I might have a chance to share in what is being said.

Mr. Alison: The time spent on the review has been extended but time spent on improvement is time well spent.

Human Tissue Act

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to amend the Human Tissue Act, with


a view to implementing the recommendations of the committee under Sir Hector MacLennan on organ transplants.

Sir K. Joseph: The matter is still under review and I cannot yet add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said in our replies to the hon. Member on 15th and 22nd June, 1971.—[Vol. 819, c. 229–30, 1180–1.]

Mr. Dalyell: Does "under review" mean that the MacLennan's Committee Report has been pigeon-holed and, if so, what plans does the Department have to face up to this urgent problem of supplying transplant organs to the differing blood groups?

Sir K. Joseph: It has not been pigeonholed, but there are at least three reports which have come out recently which have to be studied together before Government policy on this subject can be finalised.

Mr. Lane: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the controversy about heart transplants will not be allowed by the Government to impede the development of other organ transplants, kidney transplants in particular, on which so much progress is being made in my constituency and other constituencies?

Sir K. Joseph: So far as it emanates from me, the answer is surely, "Yes".

Dr. Summerskill: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Sir Hector MacLennan's Committee reported 2½ years ago and that the Committee comprised many distinguished people? Does he appreciate that while he is studying many hundreds of people are dying, people who require kidney transplants but for whom donors are not available?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not sure that I can accept the terms of the hon. Lady's supplementary—

Mr. Dalyell: It is true.

Sir K. Joseph: —but it does not follow, even if it were true, that a change in the law would necessarily produce the extra kidneys for transplants. It is this delicate question which we are studying.

Casualty Departments (Staff Shortages)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress

has been made in his review of staff shortages in casualty departments, in particular in the Home Counties; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: If my hon. Friend has in mind my Department's discussions with representatives of the medical profession, these showed that an improved career structure is necessary to attract young doctors to these departments. As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) on 29th November, boards have been asked to formulate proposals for up to 30 new consultant posts as an initial dedevelopment.—[Vol. 827, c. 40.]

Mr. McCrindle: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, particularly at the onset of Christmas, with the concentration in the Press on accidents, there is concern among many over the absence of casualty facilities in certain areas, particularly, if my information is correct, in the Greater London Area and the Home Counties? May I put to him that only the development of a new career structure, making this sort of casualty department post truly attractive to young doctors, will solve the problem in the long term?

Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point about the anxiety over casualty departments. I am sure that he and the public will be reassured by the prospect of 30 new consultant posts.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: As we are short of doctors throughout the country, cannot something be done to make the profession more attractive? Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consult his Cabinet colleagues so that more places can be made available in medical schools for young medical students and in particular for young women medical students whose numbers are well below the number of male medical students?

Mr. Alison: That is a much wider question. Making the casualty department post attractive is a genuine and specific difficulty which we are trying to overcome.

Dr. Stuttaford: Can my hon. Friend tell me what success he has had in restoring casualty department services to the Norfolk and Norwich areas?

Mr. Alison: On further notice I will be able to look into the question and advise my hon. Friend about that.

Dr. Miller: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the position in casualty departments might be helped if the Department looked at the situation the other way round? Instead of having junior doctors in casualty departments, will he try to inculcate into hospital management boards the idea that there should be a senior hospital surgeon present to deal with casualties? Does he realise that this would do two things? First, it would decrease the serious results of accidents and, secondly, it would allow the senior hospital surgeon to play his full part in this kind of work along with the more junior doctors.

Mr. Alison: I will reflect upon what the hon. Gentleman suggested, but I am sure he appreciates that the difficulty has to do with the wide variety of special needs which arise in casualty departments having to be co-ordinated with the specialities of the consultants.

Family Income Supplement

Mr. William Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the global sum paid to successful applicants for family income supplement, and what is the average payment per claim.

Sir K. Joseph: I estimate that up to 17th December nearly £2 million had been paid in family income supplements for people in full-time work. The average of the weekly payments is £1·72.

Mr. Hannan: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the first figure suggests that this scheme is still not widely enough known? What further steps does he think he could take to give greater publicity to it? Does not the second figure show the need for more generous treatment among those cases which have been reported?

Sir K. Joseph: I have three things to say in answer to that. First, I have now got the result of the review which I promised the House would be made into the numbers eligible. My original estimate on Second Reading was 164,000 households plus 25,000 on wage stop. The latest survey shows that the comparable figures are 140,000, with a take

up of 68,000, plus 25,000 on wage stop. That makes a total of 93,000, or 50 per cent. of the original estimate. Secondly, the benefit per household at £1·72 is nearly double the original estimate. Thirdly, I am announcing in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that the Government are proposing, subject to parliamentary approval of the regulations, to increase the prescribed amounts by £2 as from 1st April and to increase the maximum payment for any households from £4 to £5. These together will improve the effectiveness of the supplement.

Mr. O'Malley: How can the right hon. Gentleman be so self-satisfied about a scheme which is the result of the extension of means-testing beyond any reasonable limits and about a situation when men on certain incomes can be awarded a wage or salary increase of up to £3·50 and yet actually receive very little as a result of the biting of the means-testing system?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman does no service in minimising the fact that there are 93,000 families, the very poorest families, in receipt of this supplement. I am not self-satisfied, but I believe that to have 93,000 of the poorest families out of a total of about 160,000 receiving much more than we originally expected is of importance. Secondly a much large proportion than 50 per cent.—probably about 75 per cent.—of those entitled to more than £2 a week are receiving awards. The great shortfall is in awards to those entitled to receive less than £2 a week. Consequently we are reaching a relatively high proportion of those entitled to most, namely the poorest.

Later—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order. The Secretary of State for Social Services, on Question No. 20, in my view deliberately misled the House when he referred to the family income supplement allowances being raised from £4 to £5 on the significant date, 1st April, 1972. What hg failed to make clear—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: It was on that date—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of an answer is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for family income supplement have been received in Scotland, and how many have been granted.

Sir K. Joseph: Over 9,000 families in Scotland are now receiving family income supplements. Approximately another 5,000 are receiving additional supplementary benefit under Section 13 of the Family Income Supplements Act. I regret that information about numbers of claims is available only for Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Brown: I am sure that the Minister will be disappointed at the low take-up of this benefit. Would he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and perhaps the directors of social work with a view to finding some basis for an approach to possibly eligible claimants to this and the other 42 means-tested benefits?

Sir K. Joseph: Most of the 42 means-tested benefits are, of course, local authority housing rent benefits which are not at the moment a matter for national intervention. I must confess that I yearn for a way of reaching individual households, but I am warned that it would be very unpopular indeed to comb areas to find people who are entitled. We are looking for a needle in a haystack, for about half of 1 per cent. of the households in this country who remain un-reached but eligible for family income supplement.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on this side will be delighted at his announcement of an increase in the rate of benefit under the supplement?

Sir K. Joseph: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Duffy: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that a take-up of only 50 per cent. after six months must call into question his selectivist strategy of first of all identifying and then trying to help the needy? This is what he is demonstrably failing to do.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not satisfied with the take-up—I am not concealing that—

but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we are now spending about three-quarters of the Estimate presented to Parliament because we are reaching those who are justified to receive the larger amount. But I remain dissatisfied with the take-up. The Government will continue to seek to improve it, and I believe that, over the nine months, we shall do so.

Wage-Stop Rule

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what sum of money has been withheld from persons currently unemployed in Scotland and in receipt of supplementary benefit because of the operation of the wage stop rule, and what was the corresponding sum in June, 1970.

Mr. Dean: I regret that this information is not available, as no separate figures of the amounts are kept for Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: Why are not these figures kept, since they would be very useful for hon. Members? Would the hon. Gentleman undertake to look at the unfairness of the way in which the wage stop operates, in the sense that it operates with reference to the basic wage, without taking into account the earnings of the man who has become unemployed? Would the hon. Gentleman not reconsider the possibility of relating the wage stop provision to the average earnings over the previous six months when the man was employed?

Mr. Dean: Up-to-date figures of the number of people involved will be available in a few months. Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman that over 3,000 people in Scotland have benefited as a result of the family income supplement. Either they have been removed from the wage stop entirely as a result of this or the amount of supplementary benefit which is being paid to them has been increased as a result of this.

Supplementary Benefit Payments (Scotland)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons at present unemployed in Scotland are in receipt of supplementary benefit, and what was the corresponding figure in June, 1970.

Mr. Dean: In November, 1971, 68,000 wholly unemployed persons were receiving supplementary benefit in Scotland. This compares with 39,000 in June, 1970.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Member aware that, contrary to what one of his hon. Friends said, a prolonged rate of high unemployment is bound to create a greater number of long-term unemployed? Would he not agree that the 312 days' period for unemployment benefit should be greatly extended? Would he not agree that being unemployed is bad enough but that having to rely on supplementary benefit after one year is degrading and unjust?

Mr. Dean: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but unemployment benefit within the National Insurance Scheme is largely intended for comparatively short periods—up to one year in the case of the present arrangements. We feel, as indeed did previous Governments, that further periods over and above that are best dealt with through supplementary benefit arrangements.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would the hon. Gentleman at least agree to review the procedure for wage stop under which disabled people have their incomes reduced on the grounds that they are capable of light work, which they find it almost impossible to obtain?

Mr. Dean: I will gladly look at that point. But the vast majority of people on benefit have gained, either directly or indirectly, as a result of the introduction of the family income supplement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORNWALL

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Cornwall.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Pardoe: While of course recognising the Home Secretary's natural reluctance to go to any part of the country where the place names might remind him of Irish priests, may I ask him to urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider the fact that the

December unemployment figures now show a 30 per cent. rise in 12 months for male unemployment in Cornwall? Will he recognise that this is a direct result of the Government's butchering of the previous Government's regional policies and that this is the worst Government for Cornwall in 50 years?

Mr. Maudling: Naturally, I do not accept any of the premises of that supplementary question. My right hon. Friend and the rest of the Government are aware of the problems of Cornwall, which will benefit a good deal, in particular, from the infrastructure programme announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the Prime Minister were to go to Cornwall, he could see for himself the developments, particularly in the road-building programme, which are taking place under this Government?

Mr. Maudling: That is quite true. It is somewhat surprising that some of those who spend a good deal of time there do not equally recognise the facts.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the whole of Cornwall, with one minor exception, is now a development area—and North Devon as well; since the Prime Minister's euphemism of unemployment being explained as "thinning out" in industry does not apply to the South West; and since the figures in my constituency have already reached 12·6 per cent., does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for a senior Minister to come down to the South West to meet trade unionists, industrialists and others who are trying to create jobs, to try to give them some encouragement and to hear what they have to say?

Mr. Maudling: That is a suggestion worth considering. The problem of Cornwall has always been particularly a seasonal one: I accept that the rates of unemployment there are high, but I would emphasise that development area status means that they will get more benefit from the Government's measures.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a


further statement on the proposed summit meeting between the members of the European Economic Community and the four applicant countries.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
It was agreed at the meeting in Rome on 6th November of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten that the preparation and convening of a summit conference of the Ten during 1972 should be a matter for all ten countries. As yet, the time and location of the conference have not been settled. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's support was clearly expressed in his Zurich speech in September.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What arrangements have been made for keeping the applicant countries in touch with members of the Six on matters of mutual concern in the period between the signing of the Treaty and full membership?

Mr. Maudling: Everyone accepts that it is very important that the various countries should keep in touch on these matters. I could not give detailed arrangements, but the principle of close and continuous consultation is certainly accepted.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) mentioned keeping the applicant countries in touch. Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange to keep the House in touch by arranging for us to have a sight of the 2,000-odd regulations which we shall be asked to pass in toto? The Treaty will be signed in January, and we cannot get copies of these regulations. Surely we are entitled to see them before we sign.

Mr. Maudling: I am sure that, when the House comes to consider these matters, all necessary information will be made available.

Oral Answers to Questions — MICROBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, PORTON

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public statement, a copy of which has been sent to him, by the director-designate of the Microbiological Research Establishment,

Porton, that in the long run the establishment might appropriately be transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Department of Health and Social Services, he will take steps to co-ordinate the activities of the two Departments to implement the transfer.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. The Government, like our predecessors, are keeping the question of departmental responsibility for the establishment under review. This was the gist of the Director's statement.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Americans can transfer their biological warfare capability to their Department of Health, why cannot we begin to do the same?

Mr. Maudling: Because the administration of Government in this country should be based on what suits us and not on what suits other people.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the Government, in their review of this matter, keep very carefully in mind the fact that the Select Committee on Science and Technology visited Porton and reported to the House on this issue in March, 1969, that in view of the enormous vulnerability of the United Kingdom from this type of warfare, it was essential to keep our defence interests uppermost?

Mr. Maudling: That was a very important report indeed. This matter has been considered many times and the considerations involved have to be balanced. The time may come when it will be desirable to make a change, but we do not believe that that time has yet arrived.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the Home Secretary ask the Prime Minister to consider this question again, particularly as there has been a considerable change since the report and the point made in it to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) referred? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to look at the whole issue again with a view to taking an urgent decision, for is it not the case that this type of warfare has been so widely outlawed that we should recognise this fact by making the change which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggests?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think there is any doubt about the view of Her Majesty's Government on the question of biological warfare. The main point is whether this institution should be managed as part of the defence or as part of the non-defence sector of government. We look at this matter from time to time, as previous Administrations have done. If at any time it appeared that on balance it would be wise to make a change, it would be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has to seek to pay an official visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so; although, as the House will be aware, he is currently engaged in talks with the President of the United States in Bermuda.

Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whether or not the Prime Minister makes an early visit to the United States, the British Government should make it clear at the earliest opportunity that the so-called historic monetary settlement announced this week will not be regarded by us as being in any way complete until it contains a provision for continuous review and control?

Mr. Maudling: I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I think that the agreement reached in the last few days has indeed been of historic importance. It will be of great benefit to all nations in their trading activities.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: There is one point arising out of this Question on which I would like the view of the Home Secretary in view of his great experience in these matters. The outcome of the monetary agreement is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having negotiated to keep our competitive position at almost all costs, has, as far as I can see, accepted an upward revaluation of sterling against the dollar at least as high as, and possibly higher than, anything previously envisaged. What, then,

were the negotiations about from our point of view?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the negotiations were about a new pattern of rates and a degree of flexibility of rates. Comparing the movements of the dollar and of the yen in particular and of the deutschemark, I believe that the bargain struck was very favourable from Britain's point of view.

Mr. Thorpe: Although it would not be reasonable to suggest that the Prime Minister should pay an immediate visit to the United States in view of the current talks, and accepting that this country has probably more influence in the matter than the United States owing to the policy of neutrality which was rightly accepted by Her Majesty's Government in the recent war between Pakistan and India, may we be assured that, as a result of the present talks, both countries will use all the influence at their command to persuade the Indian Government, who have accepted the obligations of the Geneva Convention, to do everything in their power to prevent the appalling atrocities which are currently taking place in East Pakistan and Bangladesh and about which we read every day in our newspapers?

Mr. Maudling: I am sure that that would be the wish of the entire House.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the present discussions that are going on between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States are within Her Majesty's Dominions, is it not about time that the President received an invitation to pay a State visit to this country, having regard to the visits paid by our Head of State to America?

Mr. Maudling: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear that suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-WEST REGION

Mr. Lamond: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to make an official visit to the North-West region.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend visited the region on 29th October, when he met the North-West Economic Planning Council, the North-West Industrial Development Association and the British Textile Employers' Association. He has at present no plans for a further visit.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Home Secretary aware of the need to pay more attention to the North-West in view of the fact that since that visit of the Prime Minister the position has continued to deteriorate? Is he aware that in the last year 53,000 jobs have been lost in textiles alone, and that according to the statistics of wholly unemployed issued on 16th December to the Press by the Department of Employment, the seasonally corrected figure for the North-West rose six times as much as the figure for Scotland, six times as much as the figure for Cornwall and 25 times as much as the figure for the North of England? Will the Government now take the advice of the North-West Development Association and pay some attention to the needs of this area?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that the wholly unemployed rate in Oldham remains below the national average. The textile industry will, of course, benefit considerably from the retention of the quota system, and the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) will help considerably over the question of marks of origin.

Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the appreciation that is felt in North-East Lancashire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Great appreciation is felt over this—about the decision of the Government to continue the quota system in the coming year, and their decision not to press ahead with the original plan to abolish the payment of unemployment benefit for the first six days out of work?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. Certainly I will. It is noticeable that the points made by my hon. Friend were singularly lacking in the supplementary questions put by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Orme: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the structural industrial change that has come about in the North-West, and particularly in the Greater Manchester area, affecting basic heavy

industries? Is he aware that this has been leading to a great increase in unemployment and that this, coupled with a lack of alternative jobs, has created a situation in which the region now has an unemployment figure of 136,000? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should conduct a full-scale inquiry into this structural change and that any recommendations resulting from it should be implemented as soon as possible to rectify the position?

Mr. Maudling: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are well aware of the nature of the problem of unemployment in the North-West region. I recall how a few years ago there were structural changes in engineering and textiles and how the North-West carried them through with great success. I am sure that the area is resilient enough to carry other structural changes as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN INVESTMENT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office with regard to the attraction of foreign investment to Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir. There is already close coordination between all Departments concerned with the promotion of inward investment in Scotland as well as in other parts of the country.

Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give figures to indicate the increase in direct investment by foreign countries, particularly Germany, in Scotland in view of the extensive campaign which is being conducted by Her Majesty's Government in that European country? Are there figures available or has this campaign failed to produce direct investment from Germany, just as the Government have failed to stimulate investment from indigenous sources?

Mr. Maudling: I could not give the figures without notice. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the efforts that are being made by the Government to promote investment by this means in


Scotland. It is a little early to expect a visit made last month to produce new factories this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister what proportion of the letters he receives regarding unemployment is from women.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
Statistics are not kept which classify letters by particular categories of correspondent.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the proportion may be, it is likely to increase sharply in the next week or two because last weekend thousands of women in Scotland took part in a demonstration against the present level of unemployment and that, as a result, the Prime Minister will be receiving scores of letters from them protesting against the present situation in which thousands of men in Scotland must face the degradation of the dole queue for the first time in their lives? Do the Government accept responsibility for the present level of unemployment? Can we look forward to new and imaginative measures in the near future to improve the situation?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is always happy to receive positive suggestions as to how to improve the situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]—I would call that a negative rather than a positive suggestion.

Mr. Orme: Nevertheless, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should do it.

Mr. Maudling: That suggestion comes ill from the Labour Party, who left behind a legacy of growing inflation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would my right hon. Friend accept the positive recommendation that he should look at the discrimination against the employment of women in certain professions? Is he aware that they are still not able to serve in either the ministry of the church or membership of the Stock Exchange, and so are prevented from serving either God or Mammon?

Mr. Maudling: Without accepting the dichotomy put forward by my hon. Friend, I must say that the Government have taken a number of measures to reduce discrimination against women in this country, and no doubt further measures will be introduced.

Mr. Heffer: If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for positive suggestions about unemployment, both for men and for women, has he had drawn to his attention the proposal by a number of Labour councillors in Liverpool, who have suggested that if the Government are prepared to give financial aid to the City of Liverpool, instead of that which is now being paid out in unemployment and other benefits, they could almost immediately create 10,000 jobs in Liverpool, where at present 53,000 are unemployed, including 8,000 building operatives?

Mr. Maudling: I have not seen that particular suggestion. I am always a little sceptical about any plans which suggest that they will immediately create more employment.

Mr. Buchan: Would the right hon. Gentleman revert to the earlier question whether the Government will now accept responsibility for the present level of unemployment? His only answer to that question is that he hopes to get some suggestions from several thousand letters. It is his responsibility, and if he wants a constructive suggestion, will he follow the negative one and resign, so that we can take his place?

Mr. Maudling: The Government are responsible for all aspects of economic policy. But we inherited a situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not again."]—The Leader of the Opposition was dining out for seven years on the £800 million deficit. We inherited a situation in which inflation was causing great difficulties. One of the main causes of unemployment is the pricing out of the labour market of many people whom industry cannot afford to employ at the rates necessary at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the Christmas Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Airports Authority Bill.
Motions on the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Orders.
TUESDAY, 18TH JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill and of the Mineral Exploration and Investment and Building Grants Amendment Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Civil List Bill and of the Transport Holding Company Bill.
THURSDAY, 20TH JANUARY—Supply (7th allotted day): Debate on a topic to be announced.
FRIDAY, 21ST JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that 10 days ago we pressed him to find time, before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, to debate the fisheries agreement announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster before the signature of the Treaty of Accession, which at that time was due to take place before the House returned.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we now understand from the Government and from public announcements that there will be no signature before the House returns and, therefore, that our debate on this matter in the first week, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman, will therefore anticipate or precede any signature of the Treaty? But does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is quite wrong that the Opposition should have to find a Supply Day for debating a matter which was left deliberately as unfinished business when it was debated during the six-day debate on the Common Market, particularly in so far as there had been a clear pledge by the Chancellor of the Duchy, to his party conference and in the House, that there would be no signature if there was not a satisfactory agreement?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, therefore, that we are stretching many points by providing parliamentary time for so important a debate? On the same question, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before there is any question of a signature, the context of what is to be signed will be made available to the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that the present plans are that the Treaty of Accession will be signed on 22nd January. Those are the present plans. [Interruption.] I said that those are the present plans.

Mr. Skinner: They keep changing.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not always treat me as perhaps as much of a fool as he may think that I am. I am using words specifically designed to make it clear that the present plans are that the Treaty will be signed on 22nd January. Those are my words. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the debate. I note his arguments. I think that the present arrangements are reasonable and I hope that they will be satisfactory to the House.
As for the last point, I shall certainly look into the question of the text in the context in which the right hon. Gentleman raised it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I accept the right hon. Gentleman at his valuation and the House's valuation of him, and I think that they are probably about the same. Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that while we are to understand that it was the present plans which may change, there will be no change in the sense anticipated; in other words, that the signature will be brought forward before the debate he has announced this afternoon?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can give that confirmation.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the Motion in my name regarding C. A. Parsons? In order to protect the interests of professional engineers who are being pushed into a trade union which is not of their choice, will my right hon. Friend say when that will be illegal? In other words, when will the provisions of the Industrial Relations


Act dealing with the setting up of various portions of it be put into operation? I want to protect the professional engineers against being engineered into the unions or sacked—which would be disagraceful.
[That this House notes with regret the action recently taken by C. A. Parsons, of Wallsend-on-Tyne, a distinguished company with an outstanding contribution to industry in war and peace, to issue dismissal notices to professional engineers, trade union members of the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers, unless these employees became union members of the Draughtsmen's and Technicians' Association: and notes that this action would be illegal under the Industrial Relations Act when its provisions become operative in 1972, and makes a mockery of establishing good industrial relations on Tyneside in this firm and can lead to the unemployment of men whose only objective is to remain members of a union of their choice, and who will not submit to dictatorships when they have freedom under the law.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give the specific answer to my hon. Friend this afternoon. What I will do is call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to what she has said, and investigate the matter further with him.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House had any weekend thoughts on when and whether we should debate the Rothschild Report on the future of research stations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I was not thinking about that at the weekend. But, joking apart, I certainly recognise that this is an important matter, and I stand by what I said to the hon. Gentleman last week.

Mr. Edward Taylor: As the reports into two of the four Upper Clyde yards, Scotstoun and Clydebank, which have been commissioned by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, are to be received during the Christmas Recess, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Secretary of State will make a statement on the Government's view of these reports when we return?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be most anxious to make a statement as soon as he can make a report to the House. I asked him specifically, in answer to a request made by an hon. Gentleman during an Adjournment debate last week, if he could make an announcement about the chairman before the House rises. I understand that this will not be possible, but that he will make it as soon as possible.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will not regard the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill in relation to the E.E.C. and fisheries as a substitute for a proper debate and vote in the House? Second, will he undertake to raise the point with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that his repeated evasions on central points during the debate were unwelcome on this side of the House and that he has refused to answer specific questions laid by hon. Members? Under these circumstances, will the Leader of the House say specifically that we shall have a debate in Government time before the Treaty of Accession is signed?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. A four-hour debate was important. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that he is seeking to pursue this matter on his Supply Day before the Treaty of Accession is signed, and that is the way that I understand the House will proceed.

Mr. Kilfedder: When will the next debate on Northern Ireland take place? Will my right hon. Friend treat it as a matter of urgent priority in view of the mounting campaign of terror which is being waged against the law-abiding people of Ulster?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say when such a debate will be possible. The whole House appreciates the seriousness of the matter, and there have been various discussions about it. I do not think that there is anything I can add this afternoon.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the undertaking he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh,


Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) during the debate on the Christmas Adjournment that the names of the additional members of the Pearce Commission would be reported before we rose. We are grateful that the names of the additional Europeans who will join the Commission have been announced in a Written Answer, but may we take it that before we rise there will be a statement, so that the House, which is acutely concerned with the guidelines and various other matters relating to the Pearce Commission, will have an opportunity to ask questions?

Mr. Whitelaw: The names were announced, as promised, and they were the names of two people very prominent in African affairs. I cannot now give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking about the statement for which he asks.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been treated pretty badly on these matters? The first three names were announced in another place, when there was no announcement in this House. The last two were announced by Written Answer, and there has been no oral statement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in more than one part of the House, and all over the country, hoped that the final list would include an African, and that in default of that it would include such a person as Bishop Skelton, the very distinguished former bishop, respected by all the African races in Rhodesia, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, and my noble Friend Lord Caradon, or anyone else that would have carried confidence with the Africans there? The Press conference given yesterday by the five did nothing to add to public confidence in the team that has been appointed. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer now, will he make inquiries and let the House know at the earliest opportunity whether any such names, including an African or those I have mentioned, and many others who could have been approached, were approached and turned it down or were not approached, or were considered by Her Majesty's Government and were vetoed by Mr. Smith's régime?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that there is nothing in the last part of the right

hon. Gentleman's question. As for the rest, the best I can do is to report what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who will be prepared to answer all those questions when they are put down to him.

Mr. Thorpe: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take this matter further? The Pearce Commission gave a Press conference yesterday in which specific questions were addressed to members of the Commission which the House will not be able to address to the Minister responsible. We are dealing with 5 million of Her Majesty's subjects for whom the House is responsible. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who I know tries to help the House whenever he can, use his best endeavours to see that we have a statement tomorrow from his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on these matters, which are very disquieting and which are the responsibility of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Pearce Commission made perfectly clear at its Press conference the way in which it was conducting its business, which I thought was entirely in line with what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had said. I will look into the matter, but I cannot be committed to a statement, particularly as my right hon. Friend will still be in Bermuda tomorrow.

Mr. Grylls: When might my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the reorganisation of the employment services following the recent statement?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say when such a debate will be possible.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: During the first week after we return from the recess, can the right hon. Gentleman carry out a suggestion that I am sure will have the unanimous support of back-benchers, which is to appoint a review committee to go into all matters concerning the adequacy or otherwise of old-age pensions? Since we know that Lord Boyle is so good at it, will the right hon. Gentleman ask Lord Boyle and his Committee to investigate the subject and report to the House? Such a move would be overwhelmingly welcomed in the House and in the country.

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a very important statement about pensions last week, and I think that it was widely accepted throughout the House.

Mr. Ross: Is it the Government's intention to afford the House an opportunity to debate their White Paper on local government reform in Scotland at any time before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to see the subject debated. As I have said before, I understand that it could have been debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. I appreciate why that cannot happen at present. I am prepared to keep the matter under review.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Has my right hon. Friend had a further opportunity to think when he could provide time for a debate on the Annual Report of the Post Office?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot provide time in the immediate future, but I note the point.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the Government's continuing policy of appointing part-time chairmen of nationalised industries at fancy salaries and even fancier expense allowances, may we have an assurance that we shall have an early opportunity after returning from the recess to debate this important aspect of Government policy?

Mr. Whitelaw: I in no way accept the hon. Gentleman's premises. These are subjects on which there are constant opportunities for questions and debates when various matters come before the House.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of the continuing dangerous situation in Pakistan, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of asking my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to make a statement on the situation as it may then have developed very shortly after the recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir, most certainly.

Mr. Spearing: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Supply Day on 20th January may well be concerned with some aspects of the E.E.C., will he tell us when the Government intend to

publish the full and official translation of all the regulations that they intend to bind us to two days later, without the mandate of the British people?

Mr. Whitelaw: It was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who indicated the likely subject for the Supply Day on 20th January. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, I note the question about the text of the Treaty, and will look into these matters.

Mr. Spearing: The regulations, not the Treaty.

Mr. Whitelaw: The regulations will of course be put before the House—

Mr. Spearing: When?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited I should say that all the matters to do with the Treaty of Accession are entirely subject to the House and legislation in the House. That is surely a proper safeguard for the House.

Mr. Bob Brown: Since the Secretary of State for Social Services has steadfastly set his face against appearing here as Father Christmas to the old-age pensioners, is there any hope that he may appear as Mother New Year after the recess, awarding pensioners a fuel supplement, bearing in mind that the hardest weather is in February and March? Will he at least provide some fuel for them to get through these hard periods?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. But I am entitled to put it in the, proper context, that this Government made the largest ever increase in old-age pensions in September, that the pension will have a higher value this Christmas than at any Christmas recently—and I believe ever—and that last week the annual review of pensions was announced.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to clear up the answer he gave in which he said that those now receiving family income supplement will have the rate increased from £4 to £5 on 1st April, 1972, when in fact two-thirds of those people will be receiving rent rebates and therefore cannot qualify for any increase in family income supplement? The right


hon. Gentleman deliberately misled the House, and the matter needs to be cleared up.

Mr. Whitelaw: Without accepting any of the hon. Gentleman's premises, and without having been into the matter or knowing exactly what happened, I will call what the hon. Gentleman says to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who will no doubt look into the question.

RHODESIA (PEARCE COMMISSION)

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the composition and terms of reference of the Pearce Commission on the test of acceptability of the proposed settlement with the illegal Rhodesian régime.
I have, Mr. Speaker, given you notice of this application.
We have heard today from the Leader of the House a most unhelpful statement concerning this tremendously important matter. This House still has enormous responsibilities of trusteeship for 5 million Africans in Rhodesia, and these are not likely to be relinquished.
This matter was emphasised by the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 1st December, when he said:
It is important from every point of view that it should be thorough and be seen to be fair.
The right hon. Gentleman went on:
It is important

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but applicacations under Standing Order No. 9 are becoming very like speeches on the merits, and that is an abuse of the procedure of the House.

Mr. Davis: I merely wanted to emphasise the importance of the composition and terms of reference of the Commission.
The Foreign Secretary said:
It is important to get the right people on the Commission,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 475–6.]

In the last few days, before the House has had an opportunity to debate these matters, the remaining members of the Commission have been appointed and they are due to go to Salisbury between 4th and 11th January to start their deliberations. I respectfully submit that it is a matter of great urgency for this House to consider these two important questions.
Concerning the two members of the Commission who, it would appear, were announced late last week, one of them, Sir Frederick Pedler, has important industrial connections with Rhodesia. He has shareholdings in a company which is closely involved with Rhodesia, the Central African Steel Corporation of Rhodesia. I think that this is a matter about which this House should know and be able to discuss.
I have no doubt that these are men of considerable integrity, but we have to ask ourselves the, question: how will the Africans consider their appointment? The fact is that none of the suggestions which were made in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—for example, to have an African member of the Commission and that it should include some of the people whose names he specifically suggested—has been accepted by the Government. I submit, therefore, that the composition of the Commission is strongly open to doubt. We are not to be told who the assessors will be before the House goes into recess. Therefore, it will be a fait accompli, and I submit that that is an abuse of this House.
Regarding the terms of reference, yesterday a very important Press conference was held by Lord Pearce, reports of which have appeared in The Guardian and The Times. I suggest that the following important points have emerged from that Press conference. Is the Commission to be given access to the radio network which is the principal means of communication with the Africans?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really cannot allow the hon. Member to continue. This is an abuse of the procedure of the House. The hon. Member is asking whether I will allow a debate under Standing Order No. 9. He has already sufficiently indicated his grounds for doing that. He must not go further into the


merits or make the speech which he would make if the application were successful.

Mr. Davis: I do not wish to abuse the procedure of the House in any shape or form. I am anxious to convey to the House why I consider—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is under no obligation to convey anything to the House. He has to convey to me a reason why I should allow an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Davis: I am trying to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, the urgency which I feel should attach to these problems which this House will not have an opportunity of debating before the recess. I am seeking to stress that certain important problems arose out of the Press conference yesterday to which the House has had no answers at all. Those problems concern communication with the Africans, about which Lord Harlech had something to say yesterday which cannot prove very satisfactory, and certain matters affecting the way in which African opinion is to be able to express itself to members of the Commission having regard to the fact that leaders of African opinion are still being detained by the illegal régime. I submit that these are matters of grave and weighty importance and that it would be quite wrong for the House and the country to be kept in ignorance of them simply because it happens to suit the Government.
In those circumstances, I urge that there is a case for allowing these matters to be debated before the House goes into recess.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) was kind enough to give me notice that

he intended to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
I must tell the House that I am worried about the procedure under Standing Order No. 9. It in no way reflects upon one side of the House rather than the other. However, time after time we have had what are really speeches on the merits in making applications for debates under Standing Order No. 9. There are other ways of ventilating these matters.
I simply have to decide, in the light of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure with regard to the administration of Standing Order No. 9, whether I think that this is an appropriate way to deal with this matter. I am afraid that, as I had to say four or five times last week, I do not think that Standing Order No. 9 is the appropriate way to ventilate these matters. I think that other ways must be found. I am afraid that I cannot accept the application.

BILL PRESENTED

HISTORIC CHURCHES PRESERVATION

Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Marcus Worsley, Mr. Edward Bishop, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr. Anthony Blenkinsop, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Norman St. JohnStevas, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Sydney Chapman, and Mr. Alexander Lyon, presented Bill to make further provision for the preservation of churches and other ecclesiastical buildings of historic and architectural importance and of the character of the area surrounding them; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th March and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

COUNCIL HOUSING (TENANTS' REPRESENTATION) BILL

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment in each local authority area of housing advisory committees containing representatives of council tenants and other members and for the co-option on to housing management committees of tenants' representatives; to make similar provision for tenants resident in new towns; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is the second time that I have sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill of this nature. In the last Session, on 20th April this year, I succeeded in obtaining an unopposed First Reading for a Bill which was substantially the same as that which I am seeking to introduce today.
I then explained to the House the various influences which led to the introduction of that Bill, among them the Council Tenants' Charter Bill, introduced in 1969 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), who is one of the sponsors of my Bill and is with us this afternoon in the House. I was able to tell the House of the experience of a number of local authorities, such as Liverpool. Southwark, Lambeth and Camden, which had already introduced regular procedures for consulting tenants about housing matters. Some of these authorities were Labour-controlled and some were under Conservative rule. The Bill which I then introduced was an entirely non-partisan Measure which had Conservative and Liberal as well as Labour sponsors.
Although my earlier Bill enjoyed all-party support, it made no further progress, largely because most of the time available for Private Members' Bills had already been used up. I am hopeful that this new Bill, introduced much earlier in the Session, will enjoy greater success.
Since the introduction of my earlier Bill there has been some further progress towards greater tenant participation. The London Borough of Lambeth has introduced a more ambitious scheme of consultation, which the representa

tives of Lambeth tenants tell me is based very much on the ideas put forward in my earlier Bill. Similar schemes have been implemented by the London Boroughs of Wandsworth and Greenwich, and other London Boroughs, including Havering and Hillingdon, are actively considering following suit. Outside London there is, unfortunately, less evidence of progress, although in addition to the Liverpool scheme which I described last April, I understand that Sheffield has a housing advisory committee with strong tenant representation which has been operating successfully since 1969.
There has also been a groundswell of support from tenants' associations through the country. The Association of London Housing Estates, which represents tenants on 133 different estates in the Greater London area, has come out strongly in support of the Bill, as has the Amalgamated Tenants' Associations Co-ordinating Committee in Liverpool. This latter body was the first tenants' organisation in the country to achieve a regular basis of consultation with a major housing authority. Many other tenants' associations have indicated their support. I will mention just one by name—the Carder Crescent Tenants' Association, of Bilston, Staffordshire, which has collected signatures to a petition in support of the Bill from every single tenant on the estate. The Association's secretary tells me that this was particularly appropriate as the initial impetus for the Council Tenants Charter Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston first came from that estate.
The growth of support in the country has been mirrored in the House. Although my earlier Bill enjoyed all-party support last April, I found it easier to recruit sponsors on this side of the House than I did among hon. Members opposite. But this time I have had no difficulty in finding additional Conservative sponsors, and I think I can claim that the Bill is now even more genuinely non-partisan than it was before. I am particularly happy to have the support of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), who was a leading member of Camden Council when it introduced its own scheme. Indeed, he tells me that his only criticism of the Bill is that it does not go far enough.
The Bill contains two principal proposals. The first is that each local authority with housing powers should establish a housing advisory committee, at least half of whose members should be council tenants, and with at least one member who is an elected councillor. This advisory committee could deal with such matters as repairs, caretaking, colour schemes for external painting, the lay-out of open spaces and the siting of children's play areas. Sub-committees could be appointed at the council's discretion for particular areas and individual estates. In the case of large estates, such a committee would have to be appointed if 10 per cent. or more of the tenants supported a written request to the local council for it. The size of the committees, their detailed functions and the method of appointment would be left to the discretion of the local authority. This should allow for considerable variations to suit local needs and for later adaptations to the structure, in the light of experience.
The second proposal in the Bill is that at least two council tenants should be co-opted on to the housing management committee of each local authority. As hon. Members are aware, councils already have power to co-opt up to one-third of the membership of these committees, but few of them appear to make use of such power. Once again, the method of selection would be left to the discretion of the local authority itself.
The only difference between this Bill and the earlier Bill is the addition of a clause to extend its provisions to the new towns. New town tenants are in a similar position to those of local authorities, except that they have no part in the election of their landlords, and it is clearly appropriate that they should enjoy the same rights as council tenants

to be consulted about their home environment.
As I explained last April, the Bill is a modest Measure. It does not compel any local authority to do anything which it does not already have the power to do. Some councils—very few, regrettably—have already gone a good deal further towards increasing tenant participation in housing management than the Bill proposes. Nothing in the Bill would confine the activities of those councils or prevent them from taking any further initiatives in the same direction, but if it is enacted it will mean that in every local authority area council tenants will be given some say in the management of their own affairs. I hope that hon. Members will feel that this is a worthy objective and will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leonard, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Critchley, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Hayhoe, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. McCrindle, Mr. Pardoe and Mr. Pavitt.

COUNCIL HOUSING (TENANTS' REPRESENTATION)

Bill to provide for the establishment in each local authority area of housing advisory committees containing representatives of council tenants and other members and for the co-option on to housing management committees of tenants' representatives; to make similar provision for tenants resident in new towns; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 11th February, and to be printed. [Bill 591.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last week the House debated, and came to a decision on, the Financial Resolution for the introduction of this Bill. The Bill itself simply implements the recommendations of the Select Committee, which, by its decision last week, the House approved.
The Civil List provision we are considering, like all its predecessors, applies only for the remainder of the present reign plus the usual six-months' period to enable new Civil List legislation to be brought in at the beginning of the new reign. The new arrangements modify rather than replace the existing scheme, and so this Bill is mainly in the form of amendment and addition to the existing Civil List Acts. Perhaps, therefore, it would help the House if I were to mention the main changes.
First, there is an increase in the provision for the Civil List itself from £475,000 to £980,000. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in the debate last week, these two figures are not directly comparable since they do not cover precisely the same items. To start with, Her Majesty has indicated that she is content to forgo the provision made in the 1952 Act for payments totalling £63,000 to the Privy Purse under Classes I and IV of the 1952 Act.
Then again, provision of up to £25,000 made under Class V of the 1952 Act for contributions towards the expenses of certain members of the Royal Family is being replaced by a separate provision of £60,000 to be paid at the discretion of the Royal Trustees. These changes have made it possible to simplify the provisions under the Act, and the single annual figure of £980,000 is therefore now to cover the salary and expenses of the Royal Household plus the small item of the Royal Bounty, alms and special services.
Secondly, there is the new provision for reports to be made by the Royal Trustees whenever it may be necessary and in any event every 10 years. The Bill does not in any way circumscribe the powers of the Royal Trustees as to the form or content of their report. They will be free to report to Parliament whatever information seems relevant to the question of Civil List provision. They would, for example, be able to submit the sort of income and expenditure figures which were provided to the Select Committee on the Civil List and published in the appendix to its report. The Royal Trustees would, however, be under an obligation to report if at any time it seemed to them that the balance of funds remaining in their hands would be exhausted during the following calendar year.
This provision is to enable the House and the Government of the day to be given sufficient warning of the impending requirement for them to take the necessary steps in presenting the necessary order to the House. The Bill provides for any such order to be effective from the beginning of the calendar year in which it is made, and these two provisions taken together clearly offer some flexibility in the timing of an order while ensuring that the Queen is not again left to finance a deficit from her own resources. The Bill provides that these orders should be subject to the normal negative Resolution procedure.
The remaining provisions of the Bill can be dealt with fairly briefly. It implements the various recommendations of the Select Committee for the increase of annuities now paid to specified members of the Royal Family and the amounts payable to the Queen's children on reaching the age of 18 or on marriage. It deals with certain minor recommendations of the Select Committee as to the statutory limit on the annual increase in Civil List pensions and the payment of transfer values in the cases of Royal' Household employees transferring to other public sector employment. It takes effect, as regards the Civil List itself and the annuities, from 1st January, 1972. As regards the Civil List pensions, which are on a financial year basis, it takes effect from 1st April, 1972.
On all those matters the Bill is simply intended to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on the


Civil List, as confirmed by the House itself in the debate last week on the Financial Resolution, and on that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John D. Grant: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Whitelaw: I have sat down, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better ask his question.

Mr. Grant: —may I ask, because last week the right hon. Gentleman was pressed on this matter by a number of my hon. Friends, whether he will deal with the subject of the tax-free income which the Queen enjoys? In winding up the debate last week the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with that. He merely referred to what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and all that that right hon. Gentleman said was that because this practice had continued for 200 years it should go on, presumably in perpetuity.
I should like the Leader of the House to explain the principle behind this concession. I repeat that last Tuesday we received no information from him about it. All that we got was what I might call "Weary Willie's winding-up waffle", and it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information about it now.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am tempted to reply to the hon. Gentleman's somewhat rude comment—

Mr. Grant: It is well justified.

Mr. Whitelaw: —but I shall refrain from doing so, and simply say that the provision in the Civil List, as recommended by the Select Committee, was fairly widely accepted in the House last week. The argument was on the method by which it should be provided and the way in which it should be administered in future. If the amount is considered to be a reasonable and proper provision, I do not think the question to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that of taxing the Queen's private money, really comes into the argument.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I shall follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman in at least being

extremely brief. In a sense this is a repeat of last week's debate, and on that occasion I said most of what I want to say on this subject, as I imagine most hon. Members did.
On this side of the House there will be no whipping at all on this issue. It will be a free vote. Hon. Members should be encouraged to vote or not to vote as their beliefs and feelings indicate. I think that from a parliamentary point of view that is the appropriate way of approaching this matter.
The more I reflect on the tax position of the Queen's private fortune—this was discussed a good deal in last week's debate, but was not replied to by the right hon. Gentleman, any more than it was this afternoon in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant)—the more I find it difficult to defend what is proposed. We are here making full public provision for the costs of the Monarchy. It is 270 per cent., on a true basis, above that of 1952. It also provides for some margin, and for fairly frequent reviews in the future. That being so, it seems to me to be very difficult to see the case for continuing the special tax exemption.
I am not sure—and here I think it may be that one did not see the issue with total clarity previously—that the vital point is disclosure, though disclosure would certainly be necessary in order to see what had happened since 1952 if we were to continue to support the existing tax arrangements. But if that is objected to on the ground that it would place the Monarchy in the unique position of being asked to tell the House and the country about private resources, something which is not asked of other citizens, then the logical corollary, with the adequate State provision which is now being made, would be to move to a normal tax position, and without a specific exemption there would be no case for special disclosure. If disclosure is objected to, let the thing fall into a normal position.
I cannot congratulate the Government on their handling throughout of this admittedly difficult matter. They have not shown nearly enough respect for public disquiet, which certainly exists, and I doubt whether, from a longer-term point of view, they have really served the


interests of the Monarchy. The Government brushed aside much too quickly the scheme put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), and they have not met—in fact, they have made no attempt to meet—the points that have been made about the special tax exemption. Bearing that in mind, there can be no question of my voting for the special proposals, still less of my urging my hon. Friends to do so.

4.16 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I do not think anyone could suggest that adequate time has not been given to the discussion of the subject of today's debate. Indeed, when one considers how small the difference between the two parties is, or at any rate seemed to be, it is surprising that we have found enough matter for discussion to occupy 20 meetings of the Select Committee, a full day's debate last week, and what could be a full day's debate today, not to mention the remaining stages of the Bill when we come back after the recess.
For that we have to a great extent to thank the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who, given the chance—and I am sure that he will be given the chance—could, I think, be counted on to prolong the discussion almost indefinitely. It has been what the hon. Gentleman no doubt regards as his finest hour.
But if we leave the hon. Gentleman out—and even he has not made it absolutely clear, to me at any rate, that he is a genuine, copper-bottomed republican—I think it is fair to say that most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Select Committee and of the House are agreed in supporting the Monarchy, in thinking that we do not want a cut-price Monarchy, and in accepting that after the passage of just on 20 years it is high time that the provision made for the Civil List in 1952 was reviewed.
That is the impression which I had after attending 20 meetings of the Select Committee and the debate last week, but I am not so sure after listening to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). He seems to have been slightly led astray by the

siren voices behind him, but we shall no doubt see what happens when it comes to a vote tonight.

Mr. Charles Pannell: That last aspersion is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. I attended every meeting of the Select Committee except the last one when the vote was taken. Anybody who was with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in the Committee knows that he expressed his disquiet on these matters throughout the Committee's deliberations. My right hon. Friend was not brought to life by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant), and to say that he has been pushed on by back-bench voices is an unworthy aspersion.

Sir F. Maclean: I do not want to become involved—God forbid that I should—in the intricacies of Labour party politics. Having listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's interventions in the Select Committee, I quite agree that he did make certain reservations; but I thought that in principle I was right in assuming that he was in favour of the Monarchy and in favour of reviewing the financial position of the Monarch. In any case, he has made his position clear today and might well make it even clearer when it comes to a vote.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is already in slightly deep water and I do not want to push him any deeper. I believe he is leaving the point, but can he tell me of anything I have said this afternoon which I did not express in the Select Committee?

Sir F. Maclean: In the Select Committee we were all engaged in probing the problems involved—and quite rightly; and here we owe a debt to the hon. Member for Fife, West. We were investigating the situation, as it was our duty to do. I was a little surprised, though I may have been quite wrong to have been, by what the right hon. Gentleman said just now. But in any case he can make his position clear when it comes to a Division, if there is one, at the end of this debate.
If I may return to my theme, the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough—[Interruption.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy


Speaker. Further to my right hon. Friend's point, there was a definite slur upon him, because the hon. Gentleman has just said he would make his position clear. My right hon. Friend said definitely that if there was going to be a vote he would not support the Bill, for the reasons he gave; and to imply that he is not making himself clear is a slur upon my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I was listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not think it was quite sufficient to cause me to call upon him to withdraw it. There is nothing to prevent hon. Members on the Opposition side asking him to withdraw, but it was not quite sufficiently bad for me to have to intervene.

Sir F. Maclean: Surely, there could not possibly be a slur on any member of the Front Bench opposite by suggesting that they were influenced by listening to their back benchers. That is something which one hopes happens with every back bench. I always hope it might happen with my own Front Bench from time to time.
What I was trying to speak about when the hon. Gentleman intervened was that the discussion in the main was not how much money should be provided or whether it should be provided at all but rather the method of provision itself and also, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) insisted, how the new deal should be presented to the public, and whether this could not better be done by bureaucratising the Royal Household.
I do not want to be out of order by going into this particular question at great length. But, personally, I was not attracted by the proposed solution for two main reasons. Though myself a bureaucrat by training, and perhaps by nature as well, I do not believe in bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. I also suspect that in accordance with Parkinson's Law bureaucracy is liable to escalate and so cost more; and I rather felt that some of the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman would have that effect almost immediately. After all, however loyal we may be we are not trying to increase the cost of the Monarchy. I was glad for my

part to observe that in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee there was no trace of Parkinson's Law or its effect, and I do not believe one could have examined any Department of the Crown and come to the conclusion that the same work, or rather considerably more work, was being done by the same number of people for very much the same reward as was being done 20 years before.
But that is past history. What we are concerned with today is whether in principle we should or should not accept the proposals contained in the Bill. That is what we are to vote on if there is to be a vote at the end of this debate. Now the great majority of hon. and right hon. Members opposite have made it more or less clear that they would have preferred the solution proposed by the right hon. Member for Sowerby but that they do not propose to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. But I imagine there still remains the hard core of 27 hon. Members and at least one right hon. Member who voted against the Resolution last week and who presumably today will once again vote against the Bill. It is to the attitude of these hardliners—none of whom, incidentally, voted against their own pay rise yesterday—that I want to address myself. [Interruption.] There is certainly a parallel—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. Gentleman thinks there is no parallel I would like him when he makes his speech, which I shall look forward to hearing, to explain why there is no parallel.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: As one of the 27 who went into the Division Lobby, may I make clear that my primary objection to the passing of the Civil List is the moneys that we are paying to hangers-on who certainly do not do anything like the work a Member of Parliament does.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but what I find interesting about this particular group of hon. Members is how few of them ever actually declared themselves in favour of a republic. After all, Sir Charles Dilke did so quite openly 100 years ago, as the right hon. Member for Stechford has recorded in his excellent biography. But they have still not made their position clear on what to most of us is an important point. Even the right


hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was good enough to say he was "an honest-to-god monarchist in a strange sense", whatever that may mean. This is what strikes me as so illogical. If they, or perhaps it is their constituents, believe in the Monarchy, it seems strange to me that they should try to deny the Monarch the wherewithal to do her job, because that, after all, is what they will be doing by voting against the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear last week, this is not a pay claim—which is what the hon. Member for Fife, West keeps on calling it. The Civil List represents the operating expenses of the performance of public duties by a Head of State which would be at least as great and probably much greater in the case of the president of a republic.

Mr. John D. Grant: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Sir F. Maclean: Because I have lived for quite long periods in various republics of all complexions and have studied how the head of state operates and my guess, which is at least as good as the hon. Gentleman's, is that it would cost the same if not more.

Mr. Grant: Just a guess.

Sir F. Maclean: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to draw invidious comparisons between the proposal for an increased Civil List and other current rates of remuneration and expense allowances. It is extraordinary that hon. Members, some of whom have been in the House as long as the hon. Member for Fife, West—who, I think, has been here for just on 20 years—should have happily absorbed a pay increase of 350 per cent. plus further substantial expense allowances over the last 20 years, and yet expect the Head of State to carry on doing, not the same job, but a greatly expanded and extended job on the same operating expenses as in 1952, gaily disregarding the galloping inflation, for which successive Governments may or may not be held responsible, according to one's political views, but for which the Monarch can quite certainly not be held responsible, especially when one stops to think that at least half of the new total—in other words, the whole of

what has been the total up to now—is entirely accounted for by the current pay and allowances of the Royal Household.
As to the size of the sum involved, it is, we have been told, less than the cost of running one of our larger embassies. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite think that we should not have large embassies, but most people are agreed that we should, and most Governments keep up large embassies whatever party they belong to. It is less even than the Arts Council's subsidy for Covent Garden Opera, and it is spent, as must have been clear to anyone who served on the Select Committee, with close and constant attention to efficiency and economy. To those of us who feel as I do that the value of the Monarchy to this country is incalculable, this is surely not an unduly large sum. Indeed, I thought the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) put it very well when he said last week that if anyone were to ask him whether the Monarchy was worth £1 million or £5 million, he would say that if the Monarchy cost £10 million it was worth £10 million. I feel just the same way as he does.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) because I was nervous that by a conspiracy of silence we should be denied an adequate debate this afternoon. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting a point of view which is felt by a great many hon. Members on the Government benches who do not bother to attend to take part in an important debate. I intend to reply to him—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): On a very quick counting of heads, I think there are more hon. Members on the Government side of the House than on the Opposition side.

Mr. Crossman: All I am saying is that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire for giving us the chance of a debate by making a speech, because when the Lord President sat down he was the only person who rose on the Government side of the House.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: We were waiting for the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—waiting for Godot.

Mr. Crossman: Here we have the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire revealing to us that he wanted to ask what was the position of those of us who will vote against the Bill, and I shall be glad to explain that to him and, through him, to our electors. He did not see how anyone who was not a copper-bottomed republican could vote against the Bill—

Sir F. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is not quoting what I said. I said that it was not even clear that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was a copper-bottomed republican. He may emerge as one when he has spoken today, but he has not yet emerged as one. I did not say that no one but a copper-bottomed republican could vote against the Bill.

Mr. Crossman: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not understand how someone who believed in the Monarchy could vote against the Bill. He then quoted a passage from the speech I made in the recent debate in which I made it clear that I thought the Monarchy was a useful institution, and he stopped in the middle of the passage.
I will explain why I think it is a good institution. If this is the question which is put up, let us be clear about it. I think the Monarchy is a good institution not because the Monarch is the wealthiest woman in the country but because of the frailty of human nature. We are not all rational. If we were all rational we would all like an elected president. Because we are not rational but emotional creatures it is good for us to have something we can look up to, to admire and respect, and it is safer to have it impotent.
As I think Bagehot explained clearly, there are two different parks of our Constitution, the efficient part and the dignified part. The dignified part is the part which is arranged for us to admire.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: rose—

Mr. Crossman: I know the hon. Gentleman has edited Bagehot, and I

greatly admire him for it, but he need not interrupt me because so far I have been correct.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was not interrupting the right hon. Gentleman from the point of view of editing, but I think he will acknowledge that this is a dichotomy which originated in the mind of Bagehot and is not, as hon. Members may feel, his own invention.

Mr. Crossman: I was just saying that this is so, and this famous division between the efficient and dignified elements is what I wish to refer to.
Bagethot said that the Monarch and the House of Lords were part of the dignified element, the part we were supposed to admire because it was just play, just pretence—they were puppets and they were impotent—whereas the real power was elsewhere. I think that the real power has moved from the House of Commons too, and that the House of Commons is now part of the dignified element, along with the Monarchy and the House of Lords. But we are not discussing that point. As for the Commons pay claim, I will come back to it later since the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire raised the issue.
The only mistake which Bagehot made was to believe that the Monarchy was invented by the clever middle class of this country who put up the dignified element as a bogus thing in which people could believe, thinking "We do not believe in it but the vulgar working classes do." This was a great mistake because, on the whole, the working classes believe in it a great deal less than do the middle class. The people who passionately believe in it are the members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Some of them.

Mr. Crossman: Some of them—large numbers of them. I was Lord President for nearly two years, and at that time I had a lot to do with the Monarchy. When I was Lord President and had his jobs to do I used to analyse the value of the Monarchy, and I conceived a considerable respect for the unfortunate people who were born to do this job. I have a respect today for those who are born to this unfortunate job of being permanently and professionally powerless.
I can believe that this institution is a very good thing. I can believe that it is a more effective exhaust for the emotions than is a president of a republic. If it can be kept working successfully, I think there is a great deal to be said for it. It is not an accident that the Scandinavians and the Dutch, as well as ourselves, are very stable democracies and have retained constitutional monarchies of this kind. But it has grave dangers because if one retains a traditional head of state of this kind, the head of state gathers round the court—as Bagehot made clear—the appurtenances of privilege. A democratic monarch must not be a symbol of privilege, but must be a symbol of national unity, a symbol of all classes.
One of the worrying things about the British Monarchy is that through history it has had connections with certain classes, overwhelmingly with the landed gentry and also, now, more and more with the wealthy and moneyed classes. The great danger in our democracy is the separation of the Monarchy and its being encapsulated in the wealthy class that surrounds it. This is very difficult to avoid. One cannot artificially create endless Ladies of the Bedchamber who are ordinary working women and not aristocrats or plutocrats. These are difficult matters, and in fact they would not want it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is an interesting thought.

Mr. Crossman: It would be an interesting experiment, but it is difficult to do. This is the concern of this House—or should be our concern—when debating the Second Reading of the Civil List Bill. When we are discussing how much money to pay out of the public coffers to the Monarchy, we are bound to see it in the light of its fulfilling its function as a national symbol, a symbol above all classes, equally shared by all classes.
In this respect the problem of the private wealth of the Monarchy is of obvious importance. If the Monarch's family, by tradition and in fact, is the wealthiest family in the country and if the Monarchy therefore tends to associate with only the wealthy and to have tastes which are shared by the wealthy, it separates itself and fulfils its function

less competently from our democratic point of view than it would otherwise do.
I would hardly describe myself as an ardent monarchist; I am a rational monarchist. I see us all as weak and frail beings and see the need to have this kind of institution which makes no sense but delights us. In the same way I see that a lot of people need religion for much the same reason, because they need to sustain themselves with some emotional solution.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No.

Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that this was true. But having seen this need—and having seen it in myself as well as in the hon. Gentleman opposite—I try to understand this and try to see how we can improve our Monarchy, or at least how we can stop its getting worse.
What would happen if we were to find our Monarchy becoming wealthier and wealthier and becoming more and more removed by that state from its proper relationship to the community as a whole? Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that if people are perfect the amount of money they have makes no difference to them. On this score I agree with the New Testament that it does make a difference in that to some extent it corrupts. Modesty would require one to say that people's wealth is something that should be looked at very carefully, and this is what we have been doing in these discussions.
There is another matter which must be borne in mind. If the Monarchy is to be respected it must not conceal unpleasant facts. It must not seek to maintain its privileges by refusing to answer questions which are put to it by the Committee which has been selected by Parliament to see how much money the Monarchy is paid. I repeat what I said on the last occasion, that it was a grave error for the Queen to give instructions to her servants that questions about her private fortune were not to be answered. Whether such questions were relevant is a different matter, and I shall come to that later, but I do not think it is proper, when the Civil List is to be decided and nearly half of a Select Committee's members are convinced that certain questions are highly relevant, to find that the Monarchy is not prepared to answer those questions. I suggest it is highly unwise for Monarchs to behave in this way. I


suggest it is a very cowardly thing for Ministers to advise Monarchs to behave in this way. The courageous Minister who cares about the Monarchy would have dissuaded the Queen from the course she adopted on this occasion.
I have some evidence of the effects of what the Queen has done. I live part of my life in this House and the other part in Fleet Street, and I am always struck by the importance newspapers attach to these matters. On the last occasion we discussed what is printed in a small weekly periodical. This time I am wiser and I have with me a great national daily newspaper. Yesterday my eye almost missed a highly relevant piece in the Daily Telegraph which was tucked away on a back page. The Daily Telegraph is a respectable paper—it must say what the Tories want. Its view is that one must print but not in such a way that anybody can read it; its attitude is to put it away in a corner. We now have the facts on record, and I shall read them aloud because I praise the Daily Telegraph for what it has done. It has given us the truth about the effect on public opinion of the Monarch's refusal to answer these questions.
In a Gallup Poll on 8th December two questions were asked. The first was: should there be a pay rise? Some 57 per cent. were in favour of a rise, 37 per cent. were against and 6 per cent. did not know. So just over half those polled said they were in favour.
The second, and key question was: do you think the pay rise proposed by the Select Committee was too high? Some 55 per cent. said it was too high, 2 per cent. said it was not high enough, and 36 per cent. said it was about right. From the Monarchy's point of view this is a very unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if there were a poll on the pay rise for Members of Parliament there would be an even worse result? Therefore, how meaningful can this be?

Mr. Crossman: I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interventions because they help me along in my speech. I intend to refer to the matter he has raised since I shall also be discussing the relationship between the rise in M.P.s

pay and the rise in the emoluments of the Monarchy and the popularity of the two. All I am saying at this point is that whereas six months ago I am sure such a poll would have had a quite different result on the central issues of whether the Monarch should declare the facts asked of her and whether she should pay tax, today public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of those who are at one time a small minority.
Feelings of this kind do not do the Monarchy any good, and it would have been far better if the Queen had been advised properly and sensibly. It would have been far better if, from the start, the Queen had been told, "These are modern days. You must not go on like this. You have to be sensible about it." When we know that the Prince of Wales is a millionaire 20 times over on his real estate alone, it is no good trying to conceal the fact that the Queen is much wealthier. If we are told that we are not allowed to have the actual figures, we have to guess. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said, it is almost certain that the interest on the Queen's private wealth is at least double what we are giving her. In other words, we are adding to an enormous private fortune.
My first point, therefore, is a simple one. I believe that the Monarchy is an extremely useful institution if it is kept properly in order and within bounds. Keeping it in order is largely a matter of keeping the wealth of the Monarchy within bounds. If we do that, the Monarchy is an excellent institution. I think that it is our job to regard its wealth as important if we believe in the Monarchy. If I were a Republican, I should be all for letting the Queen become wealthier and wealthier. I should be all for letting her be stupid, because I should want to make the Monarchy unpopular. But I do not want that. I want the Monarch to be properly advised. She has been badly advised on this occasion.
It is an outrage that a Select Committee in 1970 should be denied this essential information. But I ask myself whether it is only a denial of disclosure which is wrong, and here I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford. I do not think that it should be necessary ever to disclose the Queen's


private income. If we knew that she was paying the full rate of tax we should not ask for her private income to be disclosed. That is a simple thought. It is impertinent that someone's private income should be brought out in any discussion of how much that person should be paid by way of expenses. The only reason why it should be brought out is that it is not taxed. If the Queen's income is not taxed, it is highly relevant to our consideration of how much she needs.
Let us be quite clear about it. The reason why I am asking for disclosure is not that there is thought to be a special reason why the Queen's genuinely private income should not be disclosed. The reason is that it has not been required by this House, as it should have been, that the Monarchy should give up its prerogative of having its whole wealth tax-free.
However, that is not the sole reason why this Measure has proved to be so unpopular. There is another reason. It is the Royals. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to give us more interesting disclosures about the Royals since he is an expert on them. But whereas no one in the country says that the Queen should not be properly paid and that we should not have a good Monarchy, there is a great deal of feeling about the hangers-on and ancillaries.
It is outrageous that we should be asked to vote today not merely sufficient for Prince Philip to do his job but sufficient for him to have money to invest in equities. We are told that in calculating the amount of Philip's salary or emolument enough must be given him for him to look after his old age. He is married to the richest woman in the country, and she is not taxed. One would think that he might just survive in his old age. But we have to allow him sufficient money to invest in equities to provide a spot of enjoyment in his old age. This is privilege, and when each of the Royals is being paid for rather dubious duties plus enough to save, I must begin to compare that with what we do for other people. Certainly we do not do it for Members of Parliament. Lord Boyle did not say that Members of Parliament should be given enough on which to live and enough to save.

Mr. St. John Stevas: We get a pension.

Mr. Crossman: The Civil List covers the pensions of the lower orders. Apparently these people are so high and mighty that they cannot be allocated pensions. I should not mind if 5 per cent. were deducted and we put 10 per cent. in the pool, as happens with an ordinary superannuation scheme. But, no: they must be given enough money to invest and so add to their wealth. That is not democracy. It is totally anachronistic. It is utterly out of date and out of tune with what any of our ordinary citizens want the Monarchy to have.
It would have been just defensible that the Royals should have been allowed to survive if the Queen had said, "Since I am not taxed on my private income, I will pay for the lot." We should then have been able to make an arrangement that if she paid for the lot that section of her private income would not be taxed. I should not object to that. It might be better if the whole thing were pooled and run by the Queen. It would be quite reasonable for that part of the Queen's money going to that cause to be untaxed. However, so long as we are asked to pay for the Royals, I object strongly to the idea of paying not only these fantastic costs but something extra to provide them with an income at the end of their lives.
I come next to the delicate question raised by both the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) of the relationship between the emoluments of the Royal Family and those of Members of the House of Commons. If there is any relationship, I must point out that it has been created largely by the fact that the Government have chosen to debate these two matters very close together. The Government chose to have the two put together and voted one day after the other and discussed one day after the other.

Sir F. Maclean: Were not both on the programme of the last Government when they went out of office 18 months ago?

Mr. Crossman: If there has been a connection between the two, it has been strengthened greatly by what I do not think is a coincidence. It seems to me


that the party managers thought it a good idea to put the two together. I suppose they thought that it would influence the House of Commons and make it easier for hon. Members to accept the money for the Royals if their own money were closely connected with it. If they thought that, it was quite infamous. That is political bribery. Let us hope that they did not think that. If they thought that, I am delighted that the people have not been taken in and have not been influenced by what is, if it were true—which it is not—a straight piece of political bribery.
I am afraid that people outside this House will be in no doubt about what is afoot. They have noticed a concatenation of circumstances. They noticed, first of all, that a proposal was made by the Opposition to give a special winter relief to the sick, the unemployed and the old. They noticed that it could not be done. Then they noticed these two matters, one day after the other, being pushed through with as little noise and fuss as possible. It was hoped that the public would not notice. I have always found that the public notices if there is any attempt to make it not notice. The Government's tactics have created more notice and not less. They will discredit the Government more, and not less. This kind of sharp practice does the Government harm. It harms the Monarchy as well. I am sorry it has been done, not so much for the Government as for the Monarch. I do not mind if the Government discredit themselves.
I was grateful when The Times wrote a nice article saying that I ought to remember that this is not the first time that the Queen's private income has been discussed. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to this article and remind us of Dilke, for Dilke was raising the issue of the private fortune and saying that Queen Victoria saved £850,000 out of her Civil List, tucked it away and invested it. He said it was an outrage. If it was an outrage then, it is much more an outrage now. When Queen Victoria saved this sum there were not the same reasons for having the tax. Since then we have had death duties; since then the rate of accumulation of the untaxed, undutied private fortune has grown enormously. It is infinitely worse now. I am grateful to hon.

Members who mentioned Dilke, who was often in advance of his time. I had been thinking of saying a few odd and muffled words and letting the thing go through, but I have been stimulated into seeing the need for an open and frank discussion.
I understand why the Lord President has had to leave us, because he is looking after the Service Committee, but he need not have spent only five minutes on this. Last time he spoke for 20 minutes and said nothing. Now he said nothing in five minutes—even better than last time. It is an insult to the House that when we do not have the chance to discuss such an important issue very often we should hurry it through. Then he said he could not think how we could spend so long on it! There were days with Dilke and Chamberlain when they spent a lot more than a day on this. Those were the days when the House of Commons extended itself.
We have time to reflect, and I hope that others will stand up when I sit down so that the public may know that we are not trying to conceal this, that we are not trying to hush up this matter with a little debate and then push it through, but that we recognise what we are doing. I am against it for the reasons given: because there has not been disclosure, because there is no reform of a Government Department, because a lot of money is being doled out to the Royals, and because it is a thoroughly disappointing Civil List truly out of date.
I hope that we shall get more than 27 votes and that even some Monarchists opposite will join us, because the best thing the Monarch can get from the House today is a message that it agrees with the minority on the Civil List and that next time it will not make the same mistake.

5.4 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: Contrary to the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), I believe that it is a good thing that we should have discussed our pay yesterday and the Monarch's expenses today. It is a salutary experience for everyone. I was struck by a remark of the right hon. Gentleman when he suggested, as some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do from time to time, including the hon.


Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), that the Monarchy is in some way responsible for the perpetuation of what hon. Gentlemen opposite regard as the class structure. That is rather out of date and all I would say is that many millions of humble people in this country look upon the Monarchy as part of our character and national life at least as much as does the right hon. Member for Coventry, East.
It is within the power of this nation to decide whether we have a Monarchy, the type of Monarchy we have and the way in which its duties are carried out. I suppose that today those duties are carried out with a great deal of formality, some people might say too much, although it is not nearly as much as in earlier years. While the Monarchy is conducted in that way, we must provide the necessary money. The Monarchy has developed over the centuries and there is no reason why the nation should not develop it further if it wished.
There are other monarchies, in Denmark for example, where it is much less formal. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked whether we wanted a Monarchy in a gold coach or on a bicycle. In Denmark it is not unknown for the King to ride on a bicycle. I do not think that has detracted from the dignity and status of the Monarchy. I know Denmark pretty well because I am Chairman of the Anglo-Danish Parliamentary Group. There are some aspects of Denmark's monarchy which I very much like, although it may not be suitable for this country. If hon. Members object to the provision of money for the Monarchy or to the formality attached to it, then they should propose changes in the form of the Monarchy. These arguments and accusations about the Monarch not paying income tax or the extent of her private fortune are irrelevant and should not be discussed.
Many hon. Members look upon Parliament as the upholder of our national liberties. While this is true, it is not the only such institution, because the Monarch is another. Large sections of the nation are animated and inspired far more by the Monarch than by Parliament and the political parties. Sections of the nation regard politicians with contempt. They say they are untruthful,

and many are; they say that they are arrogant, puffed up with a sense of their own power, that they often use their privilege in this Chamber to say things they would not say outside for fear of the consequences.
Those sections of the population do not look to the political parties for their inspiration nor do they give their loyalties to the political parties. They look to the Monarch who is in turn buttressed by the Royal Family. For that reason it is necessary to provide money for them as it is necessary to provide money for the Monarch. The Monarchy is a source of strength to the nation. It is a focus for our loyalties, it is a moderating influence on the passions and controversies of national life and a buttress to our liberties. A financial means to enable the Monarchy to function normally must be provided.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Dormand: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) about my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), perhaps the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I returned yesterday from my home in my constituency where, like many hon. Members recently, I have been attending a number of functions connected with the festive season. At all those functions several people said to me, "When you get back to London, tell Hamilton how much we agree with him and thank him for expressing our views on Royal Family finances." On none of those occasions has a single constituent disagreed with my hon. Friend—

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Would the hon. Gentleman give way on that one point?

Mr. Dormand: Not at this stage.
I have passed on my thanks to my hon. Friend, but I go further. I express my admiration to him for the work that he has done in this House as a long-standing critic of Royal Family finances over many years. I believe that he has considerable support in the country, not only for what he said in the debate last week, but for what he has said over many years.
My views on this matter are very similar to those of my hon. Friend. I


am a Republican of the copper-bottomed variety to which the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire referred. For my part, the whole of the Royal Establishment, from the Queen downwards, could go tomorrow, lock, stock and barrel. But I do not feel that my views reflect those of my constituents or of the country as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West and I have similar views because we were born and brought up within a few miles of each other in County Durham. I mention that because I have no doubt that the people of the North of England do not hold the Monarchy and the Royal Family in the same esteem as those in the South of England—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: That is absolute rubbish. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dormand: Not just now.
Those of us who ask questions on Royal Family financies, as I have done on a number of occasions since I came to the House last year, are always told that there are more important things to worry about. I accept that—at the moment I am more concerned about the disgraceful unemployment figures in my constituency—but someone at some time has to say something about what is going on with the Royal Family. There was never a more appropriate time than now. After all, we are talking about public money.
In opposing this Bill, I believe that I am expressing the views of the majority of my constituents. I do not know whether I am expressing the majority view of the country, but judging from the poll which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) has produced, I am beginning as a republican to be more optimistic about the situation. I know this from talking to people and from the letters that I receive—I have been well known in my area as a republican for some years—from the wholesale clearance of cinemas when the National Anthem is played and from the kind of article which Peter Jenkins wrote in The Guardian on 7th December, and so on.
The Government are failing to recognise this change. This was demonstrated very clearly in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech last week, when he com

pared the cost of the Monarchy with the cost of our embassies in Rome and Bonn and the subsidy which is given to the Covent Garden Opera Company. These comparisons miss the point completely. What people complain about is the degree of privilege involved. They are concerned, for example, that a Royal yacht, which would he more properly called a Royal liner, should be built at a cost of £2·15 million and run at an annual cost of £839,000 for a handful of people.
It does the cause of the Monarchy no good at all when people are told, as they were told in 1953 and 1954, that one of the reasons for building the Royal yacht was that it could be converted into a hospital ship in time of war. One of my constituents only yesterday remembered this. People are cynical about such justifications and suspicious that the Select Committee was not permitted, as part of its duties, even to visit the Royal yacht. The same kind of thing can be said about Royal aeroplanes, Royal trains, Royal Palaces, the Royal Household and the rest of the catalogue.
Privileges and waste of this kind do not reflect the mood of the people in 1971. The mood to a growing extent is a combination of apathy and opposition. I predict that the Monarchy, as part of our constitution, will wither away through opposition and sheer lack of support—perhaps sooner than most people think.
I am always astonished when people here and outside say that the Monarchy is much to be preferred to a political presidency. This may be so, but they talk as if it were the only alternative. There is another alternative—a non-political presidency. It would be both suitable and an easily established alternative to a Monarchy.
I believe that this country, more than any other, can produce men and women of integrity, of intelligence, of experience, of assiduity and of dignity by the dozen, people who would be eminently suitable for this kind of position. These qualities and experience would command the respect of ordinary men and women. Certainly, debating the money to be given to such a person would be a much easier task than we have at the moment, when we have to begin by trying to disperse the mystique which surrounds the present Monarchy.


I believe, too, that the Queen—or any Monarch—is done a disservice by those who continually tell us how hard she works. This was done in the evidence to the Select Committee. The gentlemen who gave that evidence made it a question of "the lady doth protest too much". The Queen works very hard, but no harder than a miner at the coal face, a teacher, a farmworker or a clerk, while enjoying considerable remuneration and considerable privilege.

Sir F. Maclean: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that he himself works harder than a miner at the coal face?

Mr. Dormand: I certainly do not—

Sir F. Maclean: Yet you are paid more.

Mr. Dormand: I visit the pits in my constituency regularly, and I do not know how on earth the National Coal Board gets people to work at the coal face, even with the improved conditions of today.
Many people believe that the Queen works hard, and under certain difficulties, but the Government should not overrate the pudding or try to kid all the people all the time.
On some of the things about which I have spoken, I find some difficulty in reconciling my views with what I consider to be the views of my constituents and of the country at large. But if the views of my constituents are a true reflection of what is felt in the country as a whole. I can say to the Government. as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, said, with complete confidence and certainty—use this opportunity to get rid of the hangers-on. Even the most fervent Royalists are disturbed about this aspect of the present review.
Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West gave a typical example when he catalogued the members of the Queen Mother's Household. In a leading article last week The Guardian thought the matter sufficiently important to write:
It also raises the questions about the entourage of the Court. In a society which is moving away from the old world of courtiers and hangers-on, it would be anomalous if the Queen's tax-free privileges served to prop up the vestiges of an outmoded aristocracy.
The Select Committee's Report should have detailed the number of bodies—the

full establishment—and should have said where they were working and who they were. For my part, I say that some of these surplus employees should be included in the Royal Family itself, and I am opposed to all these increases being given to the Queen Mother, the Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Anne, Princess Margaret and the Duke of Gloucester.
If this sort of work must be done—I concede that many hon. Members and many people outside feel that it should be done—let us have only one person on the payroll, the Queen, because to pay £255,000, mostly tax-free, to these other people is nothing short of a scandal.
The biggest defeat which some members of the Select Committee suffered was over their failure to dispel the secrecy which surrounds the Queen's fortune. We do not know the figure, but we can say with safety that it is one of the largest fortunes in the country. It has been made clear that the reason is simply that her income from all sources is tax free. I am utterly opposed to tax-free income of this kind. It would be fairer if, when talking about Royal Family allowances, we used the gross figure, which comes to several million pounds, and not the smaller net figure, which is the one that always appears in the newspapers and on television.
I believe that any payments which may be necessary to the members of the Royal Family should come out of the Queen's Privy Purse. Do the Government really expect hon. Members, at least those on this side of the House, to agree to a tax-free increase of £500 a week for the Queen Mother, £400 a week for Princess Margaret, and all the rest of the increases? If I supported this sort of nonsense I would be lynched on the streets of Easington.
These increases have not been sufficiently publicised on radio and television and in the newspapers. If they had been, I doubt whether the number of people who took part in the poll would have supported rises of this magnitude, particularly for people in such comfortable circumstances. This demonstrates once again that the Government are completely out of touch with the ordinary men and women who make up this nation.
Of the aspects that disturb me, none disturbs me more than the failure to break through the secrecy surrounding the


Royal Family finances. At a time when there is greater need for frankness and clarity, the Government have refused to attempt to reveal the whole story, and in my view those concerned will pay a heavy price for what is being perpetrated.
Apart from the ridiculous increases that are being sought, Parliament is to have less control then ever before. If I interpret matters correctly, we shall never again have this type of Select Committee, and that represents a considerable victory for some people.
This is all part of the determination of a reactionary Government to preserve the essential class structure of this society. The Royal Family and the Monarchy still remain at the core of that class structure, however much they may have responded to changes in the democratic processes in recent decades. But this structure is crumbling. It is receiving support from fewer and fewer people. It is a structure which I shall not support tonight or on any other occasion.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I intend to be brief, and I am tempted to my feet only by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who questioned why the 27 hon. Members who voted against this issue last week did not vote against pay rises for hon. Members and Ministers yesterday.

Mr. Skinner: I tried my best to do so.

Mr. Loughlin: I did not, and in my view there are no grounds for such an analogy.
When it comes to deciding whether we should have a queen, a king or a president, I am an agnostic. A president might be cheaper and he might do the job better or not as well as it is being done today by the Queen.
Whatever may be said about our prejudices or about some people being old fashioned, I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain had no objection to the provision which Parliament makes for the Queen being examined periodically, with improvements being made as and when necessary to enable her to do her job well.
However, that aspect is only part of what we are discussing. It is reasonable

to assume that if we had a president we would have to make provision for his household and give him the wherewithal to do the job. Here, on the other hand, we are dealing with the household expenses of the Queen, her Consort and a whole series of relatives and their children. It is reasonable to assume that if we had a president he would be responsible for maintaining his wife and kids.
I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire can say that we are being indecent in not voting against increased salaries for Ministers and hon. Members because we voted against certain aspects of the Civil List.

Sir F. Maclean: I did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends were being indecent. I simply said that they were being illogical.

Mr. Loughlin: The inflexion of the hon. Gentleman's voice suggested something more than illogical. In any event, that sort of intervention is pointless. I have no objection to hon. Members making debating points.
I understand that Princess Margaret will, if we approve these provisions, have £700 a week tax-free. Does the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire think that certain of the hangers-on to whom I have referred are doing as much work as hon. Members?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As a number of hon. Members are likely to refer to this so-called tax-free provision to the annuitants, it may be helpful if I make it clear that it is tax-free only to the extent to which it is certified by the Treasury as being wholly, necessarily and exclusively expenditure incurred in the carrying out of the duties for which it is paid.

Mr. Loughlin: In that case, I invite the hon. Gentleman to submit to the House the tax returns of these people and to indicate at a subsequent date the amounts which are tax free. We do not have those figures.

Mr. William Hamilton: The evidence states that Princess Margaret at present gets her income completely tax free. It is regarded as 100 per cent. expenses. The Treasury evidence is that all the annuitants vastly exceed in expenses what they now get,


and that is why the Government are suggesting these increases.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend's intervention clears up the point.
Then we have the Duke of Gloucester, and provision is made for the children of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke of Edinburgh makes many statements. According to The Times of last Saturday, he is very interested in the question of the population explosion. As I understand it, he has four children. It is a bit impudent for anyone who has four children to lecture others on the population explosion. We are making enormous provision in the Bill for the children of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. I quote what the Duke says about the population explosion. When talking about the means by which people can be compelled to have fewer children, he said that there were other possible ways: for example, by manipulation of children's allowances. He continued:
We now subsidise people to have children. You could argue that it might be possible to tax people for having children. This is not to say that it will stop them, but it makes it more expensive. There is a certain amount to be said for this, because a couple with eight children, it is estimated, costs society £30,000 in 10 years, and this is only for education and family allowances. It does not take into account social security.
I notice that the Duke cites a family with eight children, but that is, by far, out of proportion to anything like the general average of a couple's children in Britain. But, even if there were only four children, the Duke cannot complain that it costs £15,000 for education and tax allowances for a family of four. It is almost obscene for this man to be talking in this way when in the very week that he makes the remark we are making provision for his youngest child to have £20,000 a year at the age of 18 and £50,000 a year tax-free when he marries.
I went to my constituency last weekend, having voted against this Civil List and having made a statement as to why I did so—on the ground that I was opposed to the provisions for all the members of the family and the hangers-on that were part and parcel of the households for which we are making provision. I can understand why I did not have a single reproach. Some people, who I do not believe for a moment are

associated with my party in the constituency, approached me, saying how much they agreed with me. But how much more would they agree with me when they read obscene remarks of this kind by the Duke of Edinburgh?
That is the reason why I am opposed to the Bill. I am not opposed to making provision for the Queen to do a job which I think she does very well. There may be a valid reason for arguing that we ought to have a president. I may take that point of view on the hereditary principle, because I am opposed to that principle. I am not opposed to making provision for the Queen, but I am opposed to making additional provision for the Duke of Edinburgh, for his entourage and for all the others included in the Civil List. If the Duke of Edinburgh thinks he ought to have four children, he ought to keep them himself.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: There cannot be much doubt that in the country as a whole there is widespread opposition to what the Government are proposing in the Bill. I have been very surprised—indeed, astounded—by the content of my mail in the last two or three weeks. It has been overwhelmingly in favour of my opposition to the payments, in general and in particular, that are contained in the legislation now before us. The opposition has come primarily, though not exclusively, from old-age pensioners. I have had it expressed from Harley Street surgeons, from principals of prestigious colleges in London, from retired high-ranking Army officers—whom one would expect to be on the other side—and from hundreds of people from all over the country; indeed, all over the world.
The vast majority have said that it is time that we woke up and time that the Royal Family woke up; that we are living in a society in which, despite whatever Government is in power, we have vast accretions of vulgar wealth at the top of the pile and unspeakable poverty still at the lower end. The people we are discussing today are at the top and will remain at the top.
I have challenged the Press, if the Press does not believe me about the content of my mail, to come to the House tomorrow morning and open my letters.


I will stand by the results found by the Press in my postbag. I very much doubt whether there is one hon. Gentleman opposite who dare say that his postbag goes in the opposite direction. Hon. Members opposite will not be receiving the same volume of mail as I am, for obvious reasons, but if they are they must be under no illusion that ordinary working people in this country will accept the kind of proposals put forward in the report.
It is significant that for the first time in history we did not get a unanimous report from the Select Committee. If my right hon. and hon. Friends were consistent, they would go into the Lobby with us tonight, because in Committee they voted against the proposals that are now in the Bill. But they will not. I understand their reasons for not doing so. But we shall get into the Lobby very many more than 27, because I know that some of my hon. Friends have been under great pressure in their constituencies at the weekend because they were not in the Lobby last week voting against these proposals.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) wanted me to be, I think, a copper-bottomed republican. Perhaps I should declare what I am. I am not a republican in the sense that I actively campaign for a republic, because I know that that would be a forlorn cause at present. But I am a republican in the sense that if every member of the Royal Family were ditched in the Channel tomorrow I would sleep soundly tomorrow night. Many people take the view that it is cowardly to say these things because these individuals cannot defend themselves. But they can and do. Prince Philip does it. He has attacked the newspapers, and he was perfectly entitled to do so. But he and the rest of them must understand that so long as they are on the public payroll they must come in for criticism in this House, and there is nothing to stop them from replying. In fact, I made the proposal in the Select Committee that they should come before us with their accounts and prove their claim. No accounts were ever presented to us by any of those individuals. We heard their spokesmen, the people who live in grace and favour houses, but no individual

came to present his or her claim as it should have been presented.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). I was extremely angry when I read the reports of the Duke of Edinburgh's speech in Edinburgh last weekend on the population explosion. He has a perfect right to say what he said, and with some of what he said I agree. There is a population problem, and it can be dealt with by abortion and various other methods, such as family planning. The Duke of Edinburgh says that it can be solved by manipulation of children's allowances. My God! it is manipulation of children's allowances—his children's allowances—that we are talking about. He said that it might be possible to tax people for having children. We have been paying him for having them ever since he had them, and paying very well, and we are to pay a lot more as a result of the proposals before us.
He added that if a couple were so un-public-spirited as to have eight children they would cost £30,000 in 10 years, and his audience were presumably suitably horrified. But that £30,000 is just £5,000 more than the increase he is asking for and we are giving him in a year, because his income is going up from £40,000 a year to £65,000, untaxed. I qualify that statement, because at present the Duke of Edinburgh is the only member of the Royal Family who is allowed by the Inland Revenue 80 per cent. of his income tax-free. It is rather strange, and I cannot understand why that allowance should be 80 per cent. and the allowance of all the others 100 per cent.
There have been repeated references this afternoon to the comparison between Members' salaries and the Measure before us. The biggest salary we debated yesterday was the £20,000-odd a year for the Prime Minister. I think that the Lord Chancellor gets a bit more, but the biggest salary of a Minister in this House is £20,000-odd, of which I think £5,000 is tax-free. But here we are discussing £95,000 for the Queen Mother, all tax-free; £65,000 a year, 80 per cent. of which up to now has been tax-free, for Prince Philip; £35,000 a year tax-free for Princess Margaret; £45,000 a year tax-free for the Duchess of Gloucester.
Then we go through Prince Philip's children. He talks about the children of other families. Let us have a look at his children. Prince Charles, between 1953 and 1970 had garnered to himself £500,000, and I estimate that come the next 20 years he will have gathered at least £5 million or £6 million, and probably double that. Moreover, although he is not yet married, we are making provision for £60,000 a year for his widow. So Prince Philip should be the last one in the world to talk about penalising people for having children. Princess Anne is now in receipt of £6,000 a year, and it is proposed to give her £15,000 a year, an increase of 150 per cent., and £35,000 on marriage. Even if she marries one of those very wealthy Greek businessmen, she will still get £35,000 out of the British Exchequer.
Then we come to the Princes Andrew and Edward, now aged 11 or 12, or whatever they are. They will each get £20,000 every year from the age of 18 until they marry, when they will get £50,000 a year each. No matter what they do, no matter what their intelligence, no matter what they might or might not be, they will get their £50,000. We are going further. We are making provision for the widows of the younger sons of the Duchess of Gloucester. They will get £20,000 a year.
It is that kind of thing that makes the people angry. They do not understand why we should do this. They say, "All right. If we must have a Head of State, let us have a Queen. We will accept her, but, in heaven's name, why do we make all these provisions?"
The matter goes much further than that. We have considered only the members of the Royal Family, but there are also the minions around the Court, the people living in grace-and-favour houses, the Court officials, the former officials, the hangers-on right down the line, all of whom we are providing for. The tenants of the grace and favour houses are selected by the Queen, but we foot the bill. We foot all the bills for the maintenance for all those houses, and they amount to a considerable sum.
This kind of set-up is so typical of what is wrong with our society. We have massive amount of privilege concentrated in too few hands at the top, and at the

bottom we have the great mass of underprivileged people, millions of whom do not know where tomorrow's bread is coming from. Despite the advances we have made in the social services, that is still the case.
I have no fear in my constituency. At the weekend the national Press were up in West Fife, grubbing around trying to find opposition to the Member of Parliament. The Sunday Telegraph and the London Evening News wanted to interview my old-age pensioners in Kelty, the former mining community. By God! I wish they had interviewed them. They would not have known what hit them if they had interviewed those old-age pensioners, who were unanimous in supporting me. I knew that. The constituency is virtually unanimous on the matter. I believe that the mass of ordinary people are appalled that we should be spending their time and money on the proposals before us.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the basic problem is not so much money but our society. The people we are dealing with seem to be insensitive to, and far removed from, the problems of ordinary people. A vast gulf has developed between the underprivileged sections of our community and the people in Buckingham Palace and elsewhere. They simply do not understand, and do not want to understand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was right to say that they had been extremely badly advised in making the proposals before us and then refusing to disclose to us what wealth they have as a direct result of the privileges they have garnered to themselves over the years. I do not think that we have heard the last of this matter.
If the Leader of the House thinks that he will get the Committee stage of the Bill on part of the Wednesday when we come back he is greatly mistaken, because there will be a mass of Amendments down to it. I shall fight the Bill at every stage. Each of these annuities and the global sun itself will come under the most minute scrutiny by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, because they deserve no less and people expect it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East quoted the public opinion


poll in the Daily Telegraph yesterday. There was a public opinion poll a few years ago which was published in a book in, I think, 1966. That public opinion poll, even before we had the considerable switch of public opinion which has been evident in the last few months, showed that among the younger people of this country 36 per cent. of those under 44 were Republican in sentiment. The younger generation is treating the Monarchy with either cynicism or contempt or a mixture of both. This House would be ill-advised to ignore the feelings of those people and the millions whom we still keep under-privileged and at the same time preserve those people at the top and their advisers who simply do not understand what is happening.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I, along with a number of other hon. Members, deployed my arguments in favour of the Government's scheme and against that put forward by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on behalf of the Opposition in the last debate. Therefore, I do not wish to go over those grounds again.
I do not believe that the case put forward in favour of the Government's proposals has been affected by any of the arguments which we have heard today or last week. The scheme is reasonable; it takes account of the realities of the situation. I concede at once that the scheme put forward by the right hon. Member for Sowerby has much to be said for it, but the objections outweigh its possible utility.
I want to devote my few minutes this afternoon to the arguments, if I may so dignify them, put forward by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and his supporters, or, if he will allow me to say so, his hangers-on, his fringe, or, if he does not like that, his court, who have been here in force today encouraged by the lead given them on the last occasion.
I do not take the view that institutions in this country should not be criticised. I accept absolutely that the Monarchy should be open to discussion and criticism just as both Houses of Parliament are. I do not argue against that; but I do argue that the criticism of the Monarchy, just as of this House,

should be fair and temperate, not unfair and prejudiced.

Mr. Skinner: Why?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Because every citizen of this country, whether he be a member of the Royal Family or not, has a right to his good name. No citizen, whatever his status, should be insulted in this House under the cloak of privilege. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Fife, West said that if every member of the Royal Family was ditched in the Channel today he would sleep soundly. The objection to that remark is not that it is about a member of the Royal Family but that such a remark should not be made about any human being.
The hon. Member for Fife, West said that he was not against the institution of the Monarchy at the moment. That may be so, but the contributions which he made both today and in the last debate weaken our institutions; they weaken the Monarchy and this House.
We have heard a lot today about the privileged tax position of the Royal Family. It is important to stress again, as did my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, that the only tax exemptions which exist as of right are those for the Queen on her income and the Prince of Wales for the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall. All other members of the Royal Family are in the position of any other citizen in that they have to justify their expenditure if it is to be tax-free. So, if there is to be criticism on this ground by the hon. Member for Fife, West, it must be directed against the tax officials if he thinks that they are allowing expenses which should not be allowed.
The point made that 80 per cent. of the income has in the past been allowed against expenses for tax purposes is an argument for, not against, alterations in the Civil List. But we have no reason to believe that those figures will necessarily be the same with the increases which will be voted if the Bill achieves the support of the House tonight.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: In order to get the record straight, may I point out that the certification of the amount of the income to be admitted as


tax exemption is made by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, not by the Inland Revenue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. However, that does not affect the substance of my point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The criticism should then be directed against the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury instead of the officials of the Inland Revenue. My point was that the criticism should not be directed against members of the Royal Family. I am grateful for that support.
The Queen's tax position has been mentioned continually during the debate. It is almost an obsession with the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). This point appears again and again not only in his speeches in this House but in the paper which he edits. He is obsessed with the Queen's tax position. I do not know why. It may be something to do with the general philosophy of the Left which is so much concerned with tax. It is an obsession with the right hon. Gentleman, but it has nothing to do with the argument deployed for the Civil List.

Mr. Crossman: Everything.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It may be an important issue, but it is separate. I do not dispute that here is an argument for saying that the Crown should be taxed—I think that it would create a constitutional anomaly, but that does not put an end to the question—but it is nothing to do with this issue about providing the necessary money for the functions which Parliament and the nation expect the Queen to carry out. That is a matter separate from the tax issue.
Another theme deployed by hon. Members opposite has been criticism not of the Queen herself but of her family. We have had various references to members of the Queen's family, nearly all of them uncomplimentary. We have heard of the "hangers-on" and "parasites", which was the word used by the hon. Member for Fife, West. That does not even have the merit of originality. It was used in this House in the year 1910. It is none the worse for that, but the Monarchy survived that criticism as it will survive the criticism

made 60 years later. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he got off rather lightly on this occasion because Erskine May records what happened to those who made disrespectful references in the past about members of the Royal Family. It says:
Members have not only been called to order for such offences, but have been reprimanded, committed to the custody of the Serjeant or even sent to the Tower.
I turn to the question of the Queen Mother. Here I wish to make an important and serious point because she was referred to by the hon. Gentleman in language that was contemptuous and unfair and which caused offence not only inside this House but outside it as well. I will tell him that the reason why the House and, I believe, the country are prepared to be generous to the Queen Mother has nothing to do with the fact that she is "Princess Margaret's old Mum" but because she is the widow of King George VI, who presided over this country at the moment of our greatest peril and gave a lead to the nation which was invaluable in repelling the attacks of our enemies. That is why the Queen Mother is respected and popular. That is why I do not believe that there is a person in this country, apart from the hon. Gentleman, who grudges her a reasonable income.
I turn now to the references to Princess Margaret. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about her are only the latest instalment of a long vendetta that he has waged against her. I remember that in 1966, when she paid her goodwill visit to the United States, she was attacked by the hon. Gentleman, and he has been attacking her ever since her marriage. But his attacks, although he may feel them to be justified, are not supported by any evidence.
I do not wish to go into this matter in detail, but I want to take up one point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that the taxpayer had provided £80,000 for Princess Margaret's house in Kensington Palace. That is not strictly accurate. My figures are that £65,000 was provided from the Ministry of Works and that £20,000 was provided from the Queen's Privy Purse, her own private income. What happened to that money is as important as the granting of it. That is what the hon. Gentleman never tells us.
In fact, that wing of Kensington Palace—a very valuable wing to the nation in that it was designed by Wren and by Kent—was saved by this money from destruction. The money was spent on structural repairs to the Palace. Not a penny of it was spent on the internal furnishings, et cetera, of the Palace. So the residuary beneficiaries of the expenditure of that money are not going to be Princess Margaret and her husband, because long after they have left that house it will be of value to the nation, and it is the nation which will be the ultimate beneficiary.

Mr. William Hamilton: The figures I quoted were given in Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions asked by me. It is the case that we have spent £80,000 of public money on housing Princess Margaret and her family. The facts are on the record. Any hon. Member can check them in HANSARD. I think that I mentioned the Written Answers in my minority report. The fact that Kensington Palace is a palace of historic value is neither here nor there. If and when Princess Margaret gets out of the house, it will be occupied by another grace and favour resident.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That lies in the realm not of fact but of prophecy. We do not know to what use the house will be put in future. What I am anxious to counter is the impression that is created by this kind of wild statement, that somehow this money has been personally lavished on Princess Margaret, and the impression that is being given that the expenses of the house, such as rates, are being borne by the taxpayer. That is why it has been worth my going into some detail.
Another major point made by the hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East is that the Monarchy forms the apex of the class structure and increases snobbery and class distinction. The truth is quite the opposite. The reason is that the highest position in society, when there is an hereditary Monarchy, is no longer open to competition. It is already occupied, so it is taken right out of the struggle for distinction and power and wealth which is what characterises societies. So far from increasing class envy, and so on,

the existence of hereditary Monarchy diminishes it.
The second point that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman keep going on about is the Court. It is a useful word for them. They use it as though we had some kind of court in the 18th century manner still in existence. It conjures up all those pictures of flunkeys and women of the bedchamber, about which the hon. Gentleman had some fun the other day. I did not object to that part of his speech. Indeed, I was rather amused, although I did my best not to show that I was laughing at some of his jokes on that point.
But the view of the hon. Gentleman on the Court does not correspond to reality. We have not got a court in the true sense of the word at all. We have not got a court which is the centre of a glittering social life. That exists only in the vivid imagination of the hon. Gentleman. The Court is extremely functional, a very small number of paid officials who work much more efficiently than many bureaucrats in Ministries. We have garden parties which are not the resort of the wealthy and the privileged but which are open, unlike the Ritz Hotel, to everyone on merit. All those who serve in local government or in voluntary services have available to them as one of their rewards an invitation to a Royal garden party. We all know that. Even we are invited and occasionally go. That is the reality. The Court has nothing in common with the vision of wealth and privilege lording it over the rest of the nation which is the picture conjured up by the hon. Gentleman.
The image of the Court is quite different. The atmosphere is different. It is domestic. It is the image of a family. That is the image which the Royal Family projects. I believe that that is extremely important. It is the image of a very happy family life, and at a time not, I think, of moral decline but of great moral uncertainty in the nation it is a real asset to have a Royal Family which helps the morality of the country by the example it sets. That is something that is intangible. How can one measure it against the few thousand pounds which is all that is involved in supporting other members of the Royal Family?
Mention has been made of the people surrounding the Queen. Surely she has a


right to choose her own friends. That is a matter of her private life. It cannot be a matter of concern for the House of Commons if the Queen chooses to go racing. That is up to her. It is certainly the sport of kings, but it is very popular with the people as well. I think that the vast majority of people are probably much more interested in racing than they are in the House of Commons.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: No wonder.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. The people will be able to judge in due course, if our debates are televised, who is worth watching and who is not.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite inaccurate when he said that instructions had been given by the Queen to her servants not to answer questions about her private income. The right hon. Gentleman got quite indignant about that, as though he were writing a leader in the New Statesman. No instructions in fact were given. The reply of the officials to questions put to them was that they did not know. They do not know the extent of the Queen's private income, any more than I know the extent of the private income of the right hon. Gentleman or he knows mine. That is not within the knowledge of these officials, and it is therefore ridiculous to say that they were acting under instructions from the Palace. These matters come within the purview of the Queen's private life.

Mr. Crossman: I accept that. My point was that the Committee sought information on this point. The Committee did not think it proper to summon the Queen. The Committee sought information via the official. The official who was asked to get the information came back and said that he did not know. I was not being wild in concluding that he did not know because he had not been told by the Queen.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that really adds to or subtracts anything from the argument. It is a new point to reproach the Committee for not summoning the Queen.

Mr. Crossman: It was a deliberate attempt to evade an issue. I put it fairly.
I said that the officials had been instructed not to say. The officials, when they went back to the Queen and said that the Committee wished to ask questions about her income, were told to reply that the information was not available. It is no good hedging this around. The Queen refused to have the information presented to the Committee. If, as a result of this snobbistic evasiveness, I am forced to, I may have to spell it out. The hon. Gentleman is trying to cloak the issue and mystify the House. The fact is that the Crown refused the information to the Committee.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not trying to cloak the issue or mystify anyone. I am merely reciting the facts of the situation. The fact is that the Palace officials did not have these matters within their knowledge.
Leaving that point aside, even if Her Majesty refused to reveal this information—

Mr. Crossman: She did refuse.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am conceding half the right hon. Gentleman's case. He must not attack me further. He must allow me to retain some remnant of my own case. I take the view that even if Her Majesty refused to reveal that information she was entitled to do so because that issue is separate from that of whether she should be given enough money to discharge the functions which Parliament and the nation require her to carry out.
I now turn to the last person whom I want to mention, and that is the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip. He has been criticised by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East for drawing a salary on which it was suggested he might be able to save something. The right hon. Gentleman made great play of the money available to the Queen, but the Queen and Prince Philip are different people, and it is very well known in the country that the Duke of Edinburgh does not have any money of his own. Because of his Royal position he is precluded from taking up the kind of salaried occupation which undoubtedly he could command were he not a member of the Royal Family. He devotes a lot of time to his public duties. He carried out more than 800 engagements last year, and it is therefore not unreasonable that he should be


paid a reasonable salary for carrying out that important function.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East was indignant because somebody said that Prince Philip should be able to save somthing out of what he received from the Civil List. That seems to be a reasonable aspiration, and something which commends him to the mass of people, rather than separates him from them, since that is an ambition shared by everyone. People want to save money to put something of their own on one side. That is the point. The Duke of Edinburgh wishes not to be dependent on his wife's money. That is a view taken by most men. He wishes to have something of his own. That is a matter not for condemnation but for commendation.
That is not to say that I agree with everything that Prince Philip says. I was as dismayed as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have professed to be by his speech about family allowances.

Mr. Stanley Orme: And about abortions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was coming to that. I was following the ecclesiastical order of precedence, with the most powerful point at the end. I disagreed even more strongly with his remarks on abortion, and it is right that he should be criticised for them. That is in the public forum. The point about the Duke of Edinburgh is that he can speak his mind in public, whereas the Queen cannot. We do not want the Duke of Edinburgh speaking his mind every day, but if the right to speak his mind in public is used sparingly it can be of great service to the Monarchy and of great help to the country.
I hope that my few remarks have helped to dispose of some of the misconceptions which have been disseminated in the House today. That is not to say that it will get rid of the prejudices of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, because their attitude is not rational but emotional, and I reflect on what strange emotions they are. The other day when my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) made a remark, of which I did not particularly approve, about Senator Kennedy, there was a tremendous uproar from the benches opposite. But what is Senator

Kennedy to us? Hon. Gentlemen opposite can sit there with sang froid and listen to attacks on the Royal Family which belong to us, but condemn remarks about Senator Kennedy who is nothing to do with this country. I reflect on the double standards which one so often gets from hon. Gentlemen opposite, from those who can hand it out but can never take it themselves.
I hope that the majority of people in this country whose minds are not prejudiced on this subject will be helped by the debate to make up their minds strictly on the merits of the case. It is undoubtedly true that those merits amply support the proposals in the Bill.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) criticised hon. Members on this side of the House for speaking from emotion rather than from the head and with reason, but the fact is that when one talks of the institution of the Monarchy it is only the emotions that are engaged. There can be no completely logical or rational defence of a hereditary monarchy, whether it is one of the absolute variety or a constitutional monarchy.
In so far as the Monarchy plays a rôle in our political lives, it plays that rôle because it is the focal point of feeling, the focal point of almost totally irrational feeling, and I do not use the word "irrational" in a pejorative sense. We are therefore talking about feelings. We are talking about emotion. We are talking about an institution which bases itself on feelings and emotions, and it is right and proper that every institution in the country should be subject to close examination in this Chamber, in the Committee rooms and in public prints, because good institutions survive such examination.
I was not present at the time, but I recall that when the Monarchy might be said to have been at its strongest, when the British Navy patrolled the entire world and when about half of the world's surface was coloured red on children's maps, the Monarchy itself, either directly or indirectly, was subjected both in this House and in the public prints to the most savage barrage of criticism that it has received since the middle of the seventeenth century.
I refer to the attacks that were printed in such journals as Reynolds News about the Prince Consort of the time, possibly the ablest Monarch who ever sat on a British Throne without in fact sitting on a British Throne, who had a salutary effect on British public life during the middle of the nineteenth century. But there were also attacks on Queen Victoria herself, and some of them went far beyond anything that has ever been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and certainly far beyond anything printed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), the Editor of the New Statesman. So we must not imagine that a useful if theatrical institution is in any way damaged in its usefulness to the country by the kind of criticism which was expressed in the Select Committee and has been expressed in this House.
I must concede one point: that a monarchy, whether constitutional or otherwise, can really survive only if there is a mystique surrounding it; and the hon. Member for Chelmsford certainly does his best on every possible occasion to add to the mystique which surrounds our existing Monarchy. He does it so well that sometimes I think I am listening to a defence of the House of Stuart instead of the House of Windsor. He must agree, however, that it is the mystique, mystery and magic that surrounds this family that makes it a part of our body politic. But once that family is brought into the arena of public entertainment by the electronic device on which the hon. Gentleman performs so frequently, which we know as the goggle box, the mystique is steadily demolished. It is that kind of erosion of mystique which is really damaging the Royal House rather than legitimate criticisms in this Chamber about the way in which the finances of the Royal House are conducted.
If one wants to examine the Monarchy in its world rôle, as to whether or not it confers prestige on this country, one had better travel around Europe, not as a member of one of these high-powered delegations to Western European Union, the Council of Europe or those other odd bodies of which I am not considered suitable to be a member, but rather as a

good citizen of Europe, reading the magazines at railway bookstalls. Those who do so, particularly in France, realise that the Monarchy is treated with conspicuous disrespect and far more scandal is printed, nine-tenths of which is obviously lies. Far more is printed in French illustrated journals about the Royal Family than is printed in a magazine like Confidential in the United States or about this or that ornament of the silver screen.
I believe this kind of thing, which detracts both from the mystique and the prestige of the Monarchy, can be directly related to the decision to bring the Monarchy itself into the arena of public entertainment. Those who advised that course of action, who advised the making of the film which tried to show that the Royal Family was just another ordinary family after all, buying mint humbugs in the village shop and toasting the catch by the riverside, gave very bad advice indeed, because when the mystique goes the magic of the monarchy goes and the rôle that monarchy can play in our constitutional life also begins to erode.
I believe we are talking of an institution which, whatever its value in the past and its potential value in the future, is at the moment suffering a serious erosion in public esteem which has nothing whatever to do with any speeches or observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West. I believe that like every other institution, particularly an institution concerned with prestige, it must be closely examined. We examine or try to examine the finances of Concorde, a prestige project. I believe we are equally right both to examine the way in which the Royal House is financed and to make suggestions about alternative methods of financing the Royal functions without being accused, as we have in so many words, of indulging in a form of diluted treason.
I myself theoretically happen to be a republican. I am in a minority, I believe, in the country and in this House. When I took the oath on becoming a Member, I gave that oath to the Head of State and I have observed it; and in defending this House and the Government of the day in foreign parts over foreign broadcasting organisations I have gone as near to the edge of perjury as it is possible for any person to go. I


have occasionally defended the Prime Minister. It is not a habit I intend to encourage in this House, but I have done so abroad because he is, after all. the First Minister of the Crown and I feel that having given that oath to the Head of State, I must make as good a case as I possibly can before a foreign audience for the conduct of the Government of the day. As I say, it carries me to the edges of perjury, but I am reluctant to stand accused of perjury in this Chamber.
The alternative suggestion that was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) would, I believe, have removed many of the Royal functions from the realm of controversy into which they have been drawn. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said in an earlier debate. He was the one member of the Select Committee who actually advocated a pay rise for the Queen herself. Nobody denies that the Queen works hard. Nobody denies that other members of the Royal Family, most notably Princess Alexandra, also work hard and perform such functions as our constitution requires. But equally there is a rising wave of criticism, which one meets as one travels around the country, about the nature of the work done by other members of the Royal Family. I will not go through the list of names. I will certainly not go through the list of addresses.
What concerns me are the frequent occasions when the Royal Family has moved away from its symbolic, dignified rôle—I use the language of Bagehot to catch the hon. Gentleman's attention—and begins to play a quasi-political rôle in relation to this House and to the Members who sit in it. I was reminded of a recent article in the Sunday Times colour supplement by Mr. Nicholas Tomalin who actually forecast a revival of interest in and affection for the Monarchy, although he himself, the last time I saw him, was as good a Radical as I have ever met in the field of journalism. He pointed to an occasion in 1967 when the late Emrys Hughes sought to bring forward a Bill in this House to abolish hereditary titles, and Buckingham Palace made its objections to the then Prime Minister in no uncertain terms.
We debated that Bill and we had a very merry time in doing so. Mr. Emrys Hughes said it would get through the House of Lords since he had enough unemployed miners in his constituency to be temporarily ennobled for the occasion to get it through the other place; and I proclaim my affection for all aristocrats provided that, like Lord Emsworth, they devote themselves to pigs and are opposed to the Common Market.
Although we had a good deal of fun in the course of that debate, very strong objection was registered from Buckingham Palace, which again refused information about private fortunes to a Select Committee of this House. This, again, in the negative sense, is an interference with political processes which have been the prerogative and responsibility of this House ever since the civil war of the 1640s and the final outcome in 1688. That is a form of indirect interference with political processes that belong exclusively and properly to this House and a departure from the mystical, dignified and theatrical rôle that ought to be played by the Royal Family. Again I find myself, without waving the tricolour, completely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West.
I do not feel that the argument that certain Royal properties have historic value carries much weight. There are other privately-owned establishments of equal and even greater architectural value to which the same argument could be applied. Why, for instance, do we not make provision in the Civil List for the Duke of Bedford, so that Woburn Abbey can be maintained in the style to which the lions have grown accustomed? Why cannot certain other smaller historic places also be inhabited and the inhabitants enabled to live there on moneys granted from the Civil List?
I believe that those in this House who are ultra-monarchist, by resisting any criticism and resolutely opposing every alternative suggestion for financing the Royal Household, are doing the greatest disservice to the cause which they advocate. If I were a member of the Royal Family—and some people say I have the face for it if not the background—gazing upon the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I would think that with friends like him I should not need enemies like my hon.


Friend the Member for Fife, West, because one can overdo it.
The Monarchy has been defended—and this is the best defence that can be put forward for it—as being a source of stability, something stable and unchanging in the middle of a swirling turbulence of social change. A good defence for the Monarchy can be presented in those terms. I recall in 1946 and 1947, when many citizens thought that the then Labour Government were not actually led by Mr. Attlee but by a resurrected Lenin and a resurrected Trotsky, the fact that the King was able to sit in Buckingham Palace gave a certain confidence to people who might otherwise have taken to the hills. I am not talking about the hills of Wales or Scotland but perhaps such hills as exist in South Africa. Rhodesia or other refuges from the Welfare State.
Nevertheless, this defence of the Monarchy begins to erode when we consider some of the arguments that have been presented against the entirely reasonable proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and various other hon. Members on this side of the House. An adamant refusal to disclose to a Select Committee of this House the exact state of the private finances of the Royal Family is negative interference and it brings the Royal Family into a political arena in which, according to Bagehot—I repeat the name to attract the attention of the hon. Member for Chelmsford—it has no place whatever.
Since it is in that arena, since it now has to be discussed in the same way as we discuss the disposal of any other large amounts of taxpayers' money, although I had not the slightest intention of taking part in this debate I intend to vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West when the Division is called because those who have impelled us to force this Division have rendered a disservice to the Royal House. In this modern age, if an institution is to be stable in the middle of the swirling turbulence of change its finances should be exposed to the same scrutiny as those of any other great Department of State.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: May I say to the hon. Member for Bute

and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), who said that we should all declare ourselves, that I declared myself in the debate last week. My views closely follow those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in that I cannot accept the hereditary principle. At the same time I recognise that the abolition of the Monarchy is in no way the issue.
I did not intend to speak again, but I have been stimulated to do so by the attitude of the Leader of the House—I am sorry he is not present—when he suggested that I had been rather rude to him in calling him a weary Willie who had been waffling. I cite as evidence the subsequent remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who pointed out that in our previous debate the Leader of the House spent 20 minutes saying nothing and five minutes this afternoon saying nothing even better. That is why, if I was a little rude to the Leader of the House, I cannot really apologise.
I want to come to the single issue of principle—why the Queen enjoys a tax-free income. The Leader of the House has done a disservice to the House by dodging this issue. He spoke in the recent debate about being described as a slow and ponderous sheepdog, but to me his performance was more like the aimless wandering of a sheep. All he did was to refer us to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who on this point said:
Historically it has been thought that, as taxes are raised in the name … of the Crown, there would be an element of the ludicrous in imposing them on the wearer of the Crown."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December. 1971; Vol. 828, c. 318.]
Why would it be ludicrous? We are told that the Queen has to pay selective employment tax, and I imagine that even right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House would not suggest that they are abolishing S.E.T. to suit the Royal Family. If the Queen has to pay that tax, why is it ludicrous for her to pay other taxes?
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames went on to say that this had been accepted for 200 years and the substance of his argument was that we should, therefore, go on accepting it. The


argument that progress and change cannot be applied here seems a strange one, particularly when it is advanced by someone who is going to an industry which is in need of forward-looking and progressive leadership with not even the ideas of yesterday but rather the ideas of the day before yesterday.
I come back to the central point still hopeful that we shall have an explanation. The only answer we get is that this is a separate issue. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends believes that it is a separate issue; it is intermingled and intertwined inextricably. If it is a separate issue, how are hon. Members to raise it? What occasion could be more appropriate for raising the question of tax-free income than this debate?
I cannot possibly go along with the Bill and I shall vote tonight as I did last week. The Bill is designed to preserve and enshrine privilege to a degree which is unnecessary and unwanted by a large section of the public, as has been demonstrated. For me it is a thoroughly distasteful Measure.

6.38 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The debate this afternoon has inevitably been a somewhat anticlimatic occasion following as it does so soon after the debate we had seven days ago.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) accused us of trying to conceal the issue. If that was our intention we have set about it in a strange way. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have before us the first Select Committee report in which has been published as an appendix almost the whole of the oral evidence. This debate and the debate which took place last Tuesday have on that account been a good deal more relevant and more informed than have been similar debates on previous occasions.
In replying to the debate, which I intend to do relatively briefly, I should like to answer some of the points which have been raised. It might be helpful to remind the House of the main innovations and changes embodied in the Bill. A study of the history of the Royal finances shows that there has been a continuous process of change over the centuries and it would greatly surprise me if the Bill represented the end of that process.

Nevertheless it embodies some major innovations and improvements and it is right we should recognise what they are.
The most important innovation in Clauses 5 and 6 is the provision for review and report and the new power of the Treasury to increase the sums specified in the Bill by order. One of the documents put before the Select Committee was a memorandum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is set out in Appendix I to the evidence, in which the suggestion was made that provision should be made for the Civil List by a fixed sum plus annual grants-in-aid paid in supplementation of the fixed sum to take account of the increases in cost. It was recognised that some new provision was necessary simply to provide for the effects of inflation. Between 1952 and 1971 prices in the Civil List type of expenditure have increased by just over 4 per cent. a year and in the last two years by 11 per cent. per year.
In the event the proposal of my right hon. Friend did not commend itself to the Select Committee, mainly because it would have involved an annual scrutiny of Civil List expenditure and annual action by Parliament, and in the Committee's words it was undesirable
to undermine the basic principle on which, on all previous occasions, Civil List provision had been made.
So we have what is, in a sense, a compromise of a combination of the 1952 formula—involving a fixed sum, too large in the earlier years but too small for the later years and intended to be averaged—plus the provision of a review by the Royal Trustees and for report to Parliament at least every 10 years.
Then there is power—I ask the House to note that the phrase in the Clause is "The Treasury may"—to increase the sums in the Bill. The Bill follows exactly the Select Committee's recommendations and reconciles the two needs. It avoids annual exposure, which most hon. Members would regard as undesirable, while at the same time making provision for inflation. I recognise that it does not achieve the objectives sought by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), but those were rejected last week by the House with a convincing majority of 37 votes—and, so far as I can see, the only Liberal who voted registered his vote with the Opposition.


It can be commended to the House as a reasonable and practicable compromise which meets the requirements of the situation.
The second major change is the fact that on this occasion there is no provision for the Privy Purse. In the Gracious Message Her Majesty indicated that she was content to forgo the provision made by Parliament for her Privy Purse. Thus, the effect is to abolish the provision of £63,000 in Class I and Class IV of the Civil List.
The third change refers to the contributions to the expenses of those members of the Royal Family who are not in receipt of specific annuities. In the 1952 Act the Queen's Civil List expenditure under Class V included provision of up to £25,000. Under this Bill the provision is taken out of the Queen's List and instead there is specific provision of £60,000 payable to the Royal Trustees for the same purpose.
There is quite a list of members of the Royal Family whose expenses of their duties pertaining to the Royal Family are helped by contribution under this head. It includes the Duke and Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra. I emphasise that these sums are paid in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred and further details are set out in Statement IV attached to the Select Committee's report.
The fourth change is a consequence of the last two I have mentioned, namely, that as a result of taking these items out of the Queen's Civil List the Committee was able to recommend a single annual figure for the Queen's Civil List to cover salaries and expenses of the Royal Household, Royal Bounty, alms and special services.
The fifth change is where provision is now to be made for widows of younger sons of Monarchs, including provision for the Duchess of Gloucester should she survive the Duke. This reflects the difficulties experienced by the Princes Marina following the death of the late Duke of Kent. Those are the main innovations in the Bill.
The other main purpose is to increase the individual amounts provided for the Queen's Civil List and for the direct annuitants. I remind the House that

the annuities are prima facie taxable but under Section 191 of the Income Tax Act, 1970, the Treasury, as with a number of other public offices, has power to specify an amount deductible as expenses under exactly the same rules as apply to ordinary taxpayers. That money should be "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred in the performance of the duties.
There is some suggestion that because this was done by a distinguished civil servant, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, somehow this was not as thoroughly or as rigorously examined as would have happened if it had been done by the Inland Revenue. I regard that as an unworthy suggestion. The fact is that the Treasury has used its powers in three cases to exempt the whole amount, in other cases 80 per cent. and in another case almost 90 per cent. It will, of course, be open to any annuitant to approach the Treasury for a review of the sums so exempted.
Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), raised the question of Her Majesty's private wealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) put the matter succinctly and correctly by saying that this is not relevant to the provision made in the Bill. Nobody doubts that the sums which have been paid under the Civil List since 1952 have been expended properly on public purposes of the Monarchy. There has never been any argument that the increased cost, for which provision is sought to be made in the Bill, will equally be spent on the proper provision of the functions of the Monarchy. What the Queen may have outside that is quite irrelevant to the provision that we make in this House. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said, those who vote against the Bill will be denying the Monarchy the wherewithal to do the job.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is irrelevant if the Queen's capital increases by £5 million or perhaps £10 million during her reign. Is not this relevant? It is, after all, tax-free.

Mr. Jenkin: I am saying that it is irrelevant to the provision we make under


the Bill for the performance of the Royal functions. The hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Dormand) and others of his hon. Friends said that what was being provided for the Queen was all right but they objected to what was being provided for the other members of the Royal Family; and there were the usual derogatory phrases about the hangers-on, parasites and all the rest of it. I do not see how anybody who has studied the Select Committee report could possibly hold that view.
Paragraph 18 of the report makes it very clear that the public duties that are performed by members of the Royal Family are substantial and are increasing. It says:
The support given to Her Majesty in this way includes the carrying out of engagements which in some cases run into many hundreds a year and which in total amounted to over 1,600 in 1970.

Mr. Loughlin: What engagements are carried out by the younger sons of the Royal Family who have not yet reached the age of 18 but for whom provision is made?

Mr. Jenkin: They do not get annuities until they are 18. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise and as I can confirm, having been present at a number of functions attended by Princess Anne, they begin to attend public functions at or even before the age of 18.
Perhaps I might refer hon. Members to Annex III, where in 20 pages are listed overseas engagements undertaken by the Royal Family, a very large number of them by members other than the Queen. It is a monstrous calumny to suggest that the sums paid to these other members of the Royal Family are totally without justification.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr, Roy Jenkins) and I both suggested that if there were a case for any payment being made to the Royals, it should be paid out of the untaxed private fortune of the Queen and not met by the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman has not yet replied to that suggestion.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry if I have not replied to it. I thought that I had been justifying the provision of money in the Bill for duties carried out by the

Monarchy. I do not understand why it is suggested that these people, who are very much in demand by organisations and bodies throughout the world and who bring with them some of the reflected aura of the Monarch herself, should have their necessary expenses met by the Queen out of her private fortune.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire made a very valid point when he referred to the efficiency audits which have been carried out on the Civil List. The figures are shown in Appendix 5 on page 93 of the report. In 1953 the members of the staff of the Royal Household numbered 530. By 1970, despite a greatly increased programme, they had been reduced to 458—a reduction of 72 or 13½ per cent.
The hon. Member for Easington, like the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), described himself as a copper-bottomed republican. I have more respect for those who describe themselves as republicans than for those who claim to be Royalists but who indulge in ill-disposed sniping at the Monarchy.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should never again have a Select Committee. He is quite wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said today, the provision made by the Bill lasts for the present reign plus six months beyond and it will be for Parliament then to decide how the new provisions should be made and to decide what procedure to follow. In the meantime we shall have reports from the Royal Trustees and, if the then Government decide, an order which will be debatable in the House.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the suggestion about the Royal yacht being used in time of war as a hospital ship was somehow bogus. I refer him to pages 100 to 102 of the report, where the Committee was given a great deal of evidence about the Royal yacht. In paragraph 14, we read:
The Britannia has the speed and special facilities which would ease her conversion to become a hospital ship in time of war. The ship is designed to fill this rôle and an approved Naval Staff Requirement is in existence which covers the conversion to accommodate about 200 casualties at an advance base.
This is a short but essential Bill. It is essential because, if we wish to retain the Monarchy—and there is no evidence


of any substantial body of opinion which shares the Republican views of some hon. Members opposite—if we wish to maintain what the Select Committee called
the scale and style of Royal occasions and appearances"—
and again there is no widespread evidence of a desire that this should not happen—then, if we are to will the ends, we must be ready to will the means. The Bill provides for the means in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee. As such, I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members in the hope that it will be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I point out the considerable discrimination between the sexes? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Select Committee came to the conclusion in paragraph 33 of its report that the younger sons at age 18 and before marriage should receive £20,000 but that daughters at age

18 and before marriage should receive only £15,000? That seems a little discriminatory in these days of sex equality.

Mr. Jenkin: The Committee gave no reasons for discriminating, and I am not empowered to speak on its behalf. Those were the provisions considered appropriate, presumably on the basis that the expenditure of daughters is, on the whole. probably less than the expenditure expected to be borne by sons.
We shall have an opportunity to debate the individual figures in Committee. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has given ample warning that that is what he intends to do. For the moment we are debating the principle of the Civil List and the Bill is based strictly on the Recommendations of the Select Committee. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 166. Noes 45.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fooks, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Astor, John
Fowler, Norman
Longden, Gilbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Luce, R. N.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Bell, Ronald
Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin


Benyon, W.
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Maddan, Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Braine, Bernard
Gummer, Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Bray, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cary, Sir Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Normanton, Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Cooke, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fidler, Michael
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)




Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steel, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sharples, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Simeons, Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woodnutt, Mark


Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher
Worsley, Marcus


Soref, Harold
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan



Spence, John
Waddington, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Oscar Murton.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John


Booth, Albert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Murray, Ronald King


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orme, Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney. C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur



Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Mr. Sydney Bidwell and


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Mr. Russell Kerr.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Speed.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS (LOANS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
All parts of the House are agreed to the need for efficient ports. If we cannot get our goods quickly and efficiently on and off ships, this country cannot hope to prosper. Today with the realignment of international currencies and the imminence of British entry into the Common Market and the prospect of a revival of our own economic activity, we may well be crossing the threshold to a period of trade expansion. As this happens the amount of goods passing through our ports is likely to grow substantially, making it all the more important to put our ports industry on to a sound financial footing. The Bill is designed to do this. The reasons for it can be stated simply.
The constitutions and financing methods of many of our ports are out

of date. Their earnings are too low. Some hon. Members lay the blame for this on poor managements, others on industrial strife. To both these causes must be added the problems of obsolescence and rapid changes in technology and trade patterns. Excessive reliance on short-term borrowing has also meant that some ports have had to meet, or roll over, their maturing debt in unfavourable market conditions.
Faced with this situation, my right hon. Friend's policy is not one of caution or of directing nationalisation. Nor is it one of subsidy. It is reform and reinvigoration, based on self-reliance and a keen regard for reality. To this end he has strengthened the National Ports Council so that in collaboration with port authorities it can play an active part in establishing realistic financial targets and strengthening managements. For their part the ports themselves must put their own house in order. They have raised their charges to reflect more nearly the cost of doing business. They need also to mount a vigorous attack on costs, to rationalise existing facilities and to realise assets that are no longer required.
I am glad to say that this more realistic policy has produced a welcome turn in the tide. All the indications are that the 1971 results, for nearly all the major ports, will show a substantial


improvement over 1970. Confidence is reviving. Here and there too the House will have noticed an improvement in labour relations. The Bill is designed to keep up and extend the momentum of reviving confidence in our ports. It gives effect to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Financial Policy for Ports" published at the end of September and is thus an integral part of the Government's programme for strengthening port management and finances.
Clause 1 is the basic enabling Clause. It enables my right hon. Friend to make loans to harbour authorities with sound financial prospects to assist them in refinancing capital debt. These loans will be made only if we are satisfied that the loan is justified having regard to the financial prospects of the port authority concerned.
Hon. Members may wonder whether a situation is likely to arise in practice where a port with sound financial prospects is nevertheless unable to raise money for debt refinancing on the market. The short answer is that this has already happened in two cases. Even when a port's long-term prospects are satisfactory temporary market factors may produce this situation, so there is no doubt that the Bill meets a real need.

Mr. Martin Maddan: What are those two examples?

Mr. Griffiths: I will be glad to tell my hon. Friend, but perhaps he will allow me to come to them at an appropriate point.
Clause 1 provides for the National Ports Council to be consulted in all cases. The council will carry out a thorough analysis of the applicant authority's forecasts of traffic, revenue and cash flow; its plans for development and rationalisation; its charging, cost reduction and depreciation policies; its debt refinancing plans; and its proposals for improvements in board and management structures.
The council will recommend a loan only if it is satisfied that the authority's financial prospects appear to be sound or that there is a reasonable expectation of their being made so by modifications to existing plans which the council will agree with the authority. It will also

recommend conditions to be attached to any loan, together with provisions for the subsequent monitoring of that port's performance by the council.
The terms of the loans will be designed to encourage port authorities to continue to borrow on the market wherever they can; or, where they do borrow from the Government, to seek alternative sources of finance as soon as possible. The loans will normally be on a long-term basis but at interest rates commencing some two percentage points above the Government's lending rate and they will rise progressively.
Such terms should result in strict financial disciplines and improved earnings, which in turn should encourage the market to resume lending on an appropriate long-term basis. Improvements on these lines should pave the way for the introduction of private equity capital which would further stimulate competitive and commercial attitudes.
Clause 2 applies in relation to the new loans the existing powers of the National Ports Council under the 1964 Act to obtain the necessary information to enable it to carry out its functions. These powers are subject to the appropriate restrictions as to disclosure of information.
Clause 3 relates to any loans made before the Bill is passed. The White Paper said that any such loans would be made from the Contingencies Fund. Clause 3 therefore provides for the Secretary of State to reimburse the Contingencies Fund from the moneys that the Bill will provide from the National Loans Fund.
The House will wish to know that loans have already been made to the Clyde Port Authority and the Forth Ports Authority—these are the two cases I mentioned—to cover debts to be paid between 11th November and the end of the present year. About £5 million has been agreed for the Clyde and up to about £3·5 million for the Forth. I am sure that hon. Members representing these areas will welcome these sums.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: What rate of interest has been charged on this money and what does the ominous phrase "rise progressively" mean? How will it be progressively increased in these two cases?

Mr. Griffiths: These loans have been made, as I said, from the Contingencies Fund and the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to repay from the National Loans Fund. Therefore, these loans are covered on that principle and the Bill provides for their repayment. On the point about the interest rates, I will obtain that information for the right hon. Gentleman and I will let him know before the House gives up the Bill tonight.
These loans are repayable over 10 years and are initially subject to a rate of interest 2 per cent. higher than the current Government lending rate. That answers in part the question of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and there is provision for subsequent changes in the light of events.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What is the current Government lending rate, so that we may be clear about it?

Mr. Griffiths: I will have to obtain that information because it varies from time to time, but I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know during the evening. The point is that interest charges will be 2 per cent. over the going rate with provision for them to increase progressively after the first two years. There are also provisions entitling the authorities to repay loans earlier if they want to.
If the rate of interest is high and is subject to increases as the years go by, there is much greater incentive to port managements to put their houses in order, to obtain better results and, therefore, to create the confidence which will allow them to go to the commercial market and strengthen their finances in that way.

Mr. James Johnson: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at the magic figure of 2 per cent? Is it plucked out of the air? Has he been advised by the market that this will provide incentive? Why not 1 per cent.?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may ask why any figure was chosen. This is the judgment which the Government have formed on the best available advice as to what figure would place upon the ports a financial discipline encouraging

them to put their houses in order rapidly so as to be able to borrow at the lower market rate and get out from under the higher rates of interest which the Government will be charging for their loans.
Clause 4 sets a limit on the aggregate amount of loans that can be made to harbour authorities for debt repayment purposes under the Bill and for capital development purposes under Section 11 of the Harbours Act, 1964. The limit set in Clause 4 is £200 million, with provision for an increase to £300 million with the consent of the House. The present limit for loans under the 1964 Act is £75 million, with provision for an increase to £125 million by Resolution of the House. It seemed to us that it would be for the convenience of the House if Clause 4 of the present Bill were to set a limit covering not only the new loans under the Bill but also the up-to-date requirements for loans under the 1964 Act for a reasonable period ahead.
The figures in Clause 4 take into account information at present available about port authority plans for development over the next five years and the amounts of capital debt due for renewal in the same period. Figures of this kind can only be broad estimates at this stage, particularly since we hope to restore full reliance by the port authorities on the market for their refinancing. For this reason it is desirable to avoid separate limits for the two different types of loan. The House will, of course, have the opportunity to review matters should its consent be sought to increase the limit from £200 million to £300 million.
I believe that hon. Members on both sides will accept the aims of the Bill. It would have been very satisfying if there were no need to provide loans for this purpose. As the need exists, however—although I hope on a limited scale—it would not be right to withhold it and thus jeopardise progress towards stability and self-sufficiency in the ports industry.

Dame Irene Ward: We seem to have heard nothing about other than Scottish ports. Does my hon. Friend intend to explain which ports are taking advantage of this facility so that we may know exactly where we stand? I do not want to hear only about Scotland. What is happening in England?

Mr. Griffiths: I am always glad to oblige my hon. Friend. The Bill provides a lending facility which will be operated by my right hon. Friend which will make money available on the terms I have outlined to any port covered by the Bill. My hon. Friend may have one or several ports in mind. It will be up to them to make application to the National Ports Council and explain their case.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I want to know whether Scotland has already impounded some of this money, as it were, and whether no other ports have made application.

Mr. Griffiths: I explained that after the publication of the White Paper the two ports I mentioned sought assistance. They were provided with assistance from the Contingencies Fund. Under Clause 3, the Bill provides powers for that money to be repaid to the National Loans Fund. Thus, those two Scottish ports will pay that money to that National Loans Fund.
It is perfectly open to all other ports—except those in the British Transport docks sector which obtain their money in a different way—to come forward for loans under these powers. It will, of course, be for the National Ports Council to advise whether such loans should be made available.
It is largely because the Bill is not in my view a matter of contention between the two sides of the House that I confidently invite hon. Members to give it a Second Reading.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: The whole House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for his careful explanation of the Bill, and I congratulate him on the way in which he presented it—like a Christmas present from a generous Government to the ports industry.
The hon. Gentleman said that extra money was being made available by the Government by way of loans and that the Bill contained powers which did not exist at present to make loans. Simply because, in a sense, the Measure provides an additional, if limited, facility, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.
However, the hon. Gentleman did not, except in passing, relate the top of the

iceberg—the pleasant idea of making more loans available—to the five-sixths of the Government's ports policy below the surface which is wholly detrimental to the future and proper development of our ports.
As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill explains:
This Bill gives effect to the proposals set out in the White Paper Financial Policy for Ports' (Cmnd. 4794).
The Minister made only a passing reference to that. In agreeing to this Second Reading, I wish to make it clear on behalf of my hon. Friends that we are not, in so doing, giving any sort of support whatever to Cmnd. 4794.
In my judgment, this is the worst kind of political pamphleteering. It is wholly inappropriate to the real and difficult problems of the ports industry, and, following the tradition of political pamphleteering, it sets up an Aunt Sally in paragraph I only to knock it down in paragraph 2. It shows no appreciation of, on the one hand, the real problems which are faced by the ports industry and, on the other, the important part this industry has to play in our economic survival. The existence of efficient ports is obviously important now. They will be even more important if, as I imagine, the Government go through with their plans to take us into the European Economic Community.
I trust that the Minister will convey to his right hon. Friend the need to look again at some of the administrative proposals in Cmnd. 4794. To begin with, I see no justification whatever for this idea of a penal rate of interest. Most ports are public authorities of one kind or another. We have the statutory trust corporations for large ports like London and Mersey, a number of others which are local authority ports like Bristol, and a number of ports in the nationalised sector including some important ones like Hull and Tyneside. Even where, as in Manchester, it is a private enterprise port, there is no doubt that Manchester would not have made the achievements it has without the solid support for many years of Manchester City Council.
I therefore see no justification for charging 2 per cent. above the Government rate. What charge has been made in the two instances given by the Under-Secretary? This is where we come to


the ominous phrase in the White Paper to which I drew attention:
and the rate will be increased progressively over the life of the loan".
This is totally unacceptable. It represents a penal rate on what is, after all, an important public service; namely, the provision of efficient port facilities.
I appreciate the philosophy behind this. It is that the ports should go out to raise money on the market and that if each year they must pay more, they will be more encouraged to go to the market. But the Under-Secretary did not tell us how, through this action of the Government, the credit standing and credibility of a great many public trust corporations will not be eroded, if not destroyed. Consider, for example, the rigid behaviour of the Government in the crisis that occurred on the Mersey, when many stockholders were not repaid on the due dates and had to suffer a substantial reduction in their capital holdings.
It is, therefore, unlikely that there will be a great flood of support, particularly from small investors, for the loans that ports will have to seek if they are to avoid paying large premiums for every year they borrow under the Bill. As far as I understand the Measure, there is no proposal requiring these high rates of interest to be charged, and this is an aspect which, along with many others, we intend to examine in Committee.
There is nothing objectionable about the Bill as drafted. It is the hidden policy, the administration, behind it that poses serious questions in our minds. We think about the way in which the Mersey Board was treated. We think of this concept of a penal rate of interest. Above all, we think of the Government decision, announced some time ago, not to make grants available for modernisation projects in the ports.
I understand that the Government intend to fulfil the commitments and undertaking already in existence, but that, for example, any decision made in respect of Bristol will result in the Government making a song and dance about why the then Labour Government did not encourage Bristol to go for a big expansion of its port facilities. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite have gone as far as sending one of their spokesmen there to stir things up. As I understand it now, Bristol has decided again that it will not get any

grant. Am I right in that understanding, and that no grant will be given? The only possibility for finance, if it cannot be obtained from the market—and that will be difficult because of the Mersey Board—is to resort to loans at these very high rates of interest.
The Secretary of State for the Environment was talking in his White Paper about a lot of small businesses. That could make some kind of rough economic sense. The hon. Gentleman did his best when talking about putting houses in order and standing on one's own feet, and that kind of claptrap. But that will not do here. We know that this came out at the time when shoooting "lame ducks" was a favourite occupation of Ministers. Probably there was a little private competition between the Minister for Transport Industries and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see who could shoot the most lame ducks in the shortest time. But now the Trade and Industry Department is going in the opposite direction, and has people looking around for lame ducks to which to give medical or appropriate treatement.
This very crude exercise in political propaganda as represented by the financial policy for ports will not do. I regret that we have not had the opportunity, despite the fanfare about how long and hard the Government were thinking about ports, of a discussion about the kind of policy, organisation and structure for ports that we need. We have had to do it rather belatedly in the current Session on the Second Reading of a Bill which, by itself, is not one to which we take strong objection, but we are worried about the whole philosophy behind the White Paper and what this may be doing to the development of the ports industry.
How does the kind of support we are now offering to our ports under this new doctrine compare with what our competitors in Europe will be offering to their ports? I am fairly certain that none of the European ports is being offered the present of borrowing money at 2 per cent. above the rate at which their government can borrow it, with a hidden clause of unknown but progressively higher interest charges every year over ten years. It could be a rate of 12 per cent. above the going rate of interest at the end of that period. Yet we shall have to compete with those European ports.
It is true that while we want to encourage competition between our ports for the goods coming in and out of Britain, and the European ports are not competing with us in that sense, a lot of merchandise comes to Europe in bulk and has to be broken down. Because this Bill is an open invitation to ports to raise their charges to the very highest level, the charges will determine whether, for example, a cargo goes to Rotterdam to be broken down and distributed around or comes to a British port. This has also a bearing on, perhaps, a decision of an American company whether to set up an additional plant. The hon. Gentleman seems to be very amused, but I assure him that this is a very serious aspect of the whole question. We need this kind of investment, and all the investment we can get. This is the basic problem at present. This may affect the decision of, perhaps, an American company on whether to invest in Britain or somewhere else in the Common Market.
The day has gone when any British firm can hope to sell goods on the basis of f.o.b. and let the buyers worry about carriage insurance, freight and so on. That is not on. We must now quote c.i.f. terms. Any increase in the cost of our port facilities will be added to the price of British goods which have to compete with others in Europe and around the world. It will be serious if we find that we are penalising our ports by the high charges which they have to make to provide the extra facilities that I would hope our export trade would demand, when other countries are making it much easier by way of grants, favourable loans, and so on. We have to look at this in the context not only of our entry into the Common Market but of our whole economic life.
It is important that ports should be efficient and that broadly, taking one year with another, they should pay their way. But we shall not have the right kind of port system or be doing the right thing for the development of our economic system if we go along with this paltry doctrine here, which might have made sense at a Tory rally 20 or 30 years ago but will not wash today. I hope that between now and the Committee stage there will be some hard thinking in the Department so that we

can come out with a ports policy more in line with the needs of Britain.
The Bill provides an additional facility but it does not take away any of the existing powers of Ministers. Our complaint is that the Minister refuses to use the powers that he has to make grants and loans at reasonable rates and is substituting this instead. We shall not be dividing the House, but it would be wrong if I did not express the very strong concern felt on this side of the House about the trend of the Government's ports policy.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) referred to a Christmas present of £300 million, but surely the festive spirit has evaded him since he first rose to speak.
It is almost two years ago to the day, on 18th December, 1969, when the right hon. Gentleman was putting forward proposals for an entirely different way of handling the ports. He and I, although we represent constituencies in the same city, have diametrically opposed views on how to handle this situation. May I placate him somewhat, as it is the festive season, by assuring him that if he had come to the House with a request that we should have a £200 million bill for loans, and certainly if it had been a £200 million grant with a provision to raise it to £300 million, I for one would have questioned it.
I must not give the impression, however, that I oppose the Bill. I do not. In the circumstances the Bill is necessary, and I welcome the fact that it has been introduced at this time. I also welcome the response of the right hon. Gentleman in advising us that his right hon. and hon. Friends will not divide the House against it.
Much has happened in the last 10 years. There were the Rochdale Report and the 1964 Act setting up the National Ports Council. Even before the Act could be properly implemented the right hon. Gentleman's Government had a diametrically opposed view on how to handle the ports situation. During the last five years, as an inlander and because of the proposals to look into the ports and the Ports Bill, I have had occasion to visit many ports. One port


management I visited said words to the effect "Owners may come, owners may go; Governments may come, Governments may go; but we go on managing the ports for ever".
One has to see the point of view of management on the dock front, because so much that is done in London and in Parliament seems so remote to these people. Two to three years ago many who were running our ports favoured nationalisation as a solution to their problems. It enabled local managements to escape from the responsibilities of management. Some of us have had the opportunity of meeting the Director-General, Mr. Maurice Gifford, and the new Chairman, Mr. Philip Chappell. Some of us have had an opportunity of visiting further ports in the last year. My right hon. Friend has imposed a new sense of purpose. He has brought in new management to the individual docks, harbours and ports. How right were the words of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4794:
For many years the ports of Great Britain have been regarded as a service to be made available without adequate regard to costs, profitability or long-term financial health."!
The Government have introduced a sense of purpose and urgency that the country should welcome.
The introduction of a Bill such as we are debating is an occasion to ask how the British ports are doing. I have had drawn to my attention the excellent Digest of Port Statistics 1971, which has an addendum giving a digest of the performance of the various ports. Some of them have done extremely well hut, for instance, the British Transport Docks Board has made a net deficit of £1·6 million, Southampton's; deficit being £900,000 and Newport's nearly £500,000. Hull made a substantial loss. The Port of London Authority has been in deficit, and the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board has made a substantial deficit, of about £3 million. This is the type of information we should take note of. What steps have been and should be taken to improve their performance?
There is another section dealing with capital expenditure which is very informative. The hours worked and the wages are reviewed in Section II of this report.

Mr. James Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman want to make the case for extending to the public sector the same Shylock attitude, the same harsh disciplines, as we find in the Bill? Is that the thin end of his wedge, to give incentives? If not, why is he making that comparison?

Mr. Osborn: Did the hon. Gentleman intervene just because I mentioned Hull? I have looked at the list of ports and pointed to those that are in deficit. Others are in surplus. I could read out the list. I said that legislation of the type we are considering is the occasion to ask, "How are our ports doing, what information is made available to us and where does Parliament come in?" I do not see the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman does not, some others on this side of the House do. In quoting the statistics, is the hon. Gentleman making the point that, because certain ports are not doing as well as he thinks they should, they should be subject to the same severe disciplines that we have just been told are in paragraph 8 of the White Paper, and should only be given money at two points above the market rate? I could not understand why the hon. Gentleman picked ports out in that way.

Mr. Osborn: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wants to make his point later he can. I am asking how our ports are doing and saying that this is a time to take note of what is happening.
I referred to the average rate of capital expenditure, and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park has spoken about grants under Section 12 of the 1964 Act. It is reasonable to ask to what extent grants under that Act are expected to continue.
During the Committee stage of the Ports Bill in 1969 and early 1970 we were concerned with foreign competition. A report of the National Ports Council then gave a comparison of costs of continental and United Kingdom ports. The main conclusion was:
From our investigations we have reached the conclusion that the four Continental ports we studied have a major advantage over the three U.K. ports. They receive massive financial aid from central or local government, who regard the ports as a vital part of their overall


economy rather than as commercial enterprises in their own right.
It has rightly been said that we must be careful to see that by raising prices for port services for goods going from this country to our export markets, or for imports, we do not put our ports out of business, losing the trade to the continental ports. Therefore, any trustee of the taxpayers' money wants to know how our ports are doing compared with continental ports and to what extent the continental ports continue to have the subsidy referred to by the National Ports Council.
The debate provides an opportunity for hon. Members to find out more about the activities of the National Ports Council. There are schemes for massive investment in our ports. As an industrial and trading nation, we are anxious that they should be the most efficient not only in Europe but in the world.
I readily accept that there is a new spirit and purpose in the management of our individual docks and harbours, which hon. Members are bound to welcome. I readily accept the necessity for the Bill, and I am glad that both sides of the House are supporting the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Under-Secretary of State said that this was a very important Bill, and very few hon. Members will disagree with that part of his statement. The Bill is all the more necessary as, after the welshing of the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board, port authorities wishing to borrow money on the open market find it extremely difficult. In so far as the Bill provides at least for some Government loans to be made available to repay capital debt, it is worth while having it on the Statute Book.
What disturbs me very much is the limited scope of the Bill, which shows clearly that the Government have no ports policy whatsoever, other than to try to inveigle private capital into the docks and harbours, hoping that that will be an incentive to make them a bit more efficient and competitive. I often feel that the statement that harbours and ports should be competitive is a bit unreal. I do not see how certain ports can be competitive if "competitive"

means that they should attract more traffic. Certain ports, docks and harbours are totally dependent on the general trade of the country. My own authority, Aberdeen, gets the trade that comes to the North-East. It does not get trade from the Atlantic destined for the west of Scotland, because it would be nonsensical for shipowners to take their cargo all the way through the Pentland Firth, down the coast to Aberdeen and then by rail to Glasgow, when it can go to the Clyde. That is a simple example of how certain ports are totally dependent on the hinterland, their geographical position and the industrial life surrounding their area.
I am particularly concerned that the Bill seems to confirm that there will be no more grants for local harbours—full stop; that is the end of the matter. Whether or not Section 12 of the 1964 Act remains on the Statute Book, the Minister has made it perfectly clear that no grants are to be available. There is certainly nothing in the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight to suggest that we shall get grants in the future.
It is significant that on 30th July, in a Written Answer, the Minister for Transport Industries said:
The Government have decided that the port modernisation grants scheme is no longer necessary or appropriate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1971; Vol. 822, c. 198]
No evidence has been adduced why this decision should be taken. No evidence has been presented which suggests that modernisation grants are no longer necessary or appropriate. What evidence has the Minister got that these grants are not appropriate or necessary? The Government must look carefully at the ports situation.
The Minister may be aware that the Aberdeen Harbour Board—perhaps I should have given advance notice that I wished to raise the particular problems facing the board—is faced with a £1 million or Eli million programme to shore up the quayside and make the harbour tidal. The Minister has said in a letter to me:
You will recollect that I informed the House on 30th July this year that the grant scheme was to end from that date.
Again, no evidence has been adduced why the grant scheme should end. It is harbours like Aberdeen which need grants rather than loan assistance. It is difficult


for a port like Aberdeen to show how it can provide more jobs by carrying out improvements. One has to know its precise position and trading difficulties. One cannot attract new industry to the ports. Therefore, this is the kind of scheme which should have some help.
It appears that the Government have no idea what they will do in certain of these areas. The Secretary of State for Scotland made an announcement from which he later had to recant. He did not do so personally; he sent a civil servant to do that job. The Minister does not seem to be aware of what is happening either. I requested him to reconsider the position about grants when we were discussing preliminary plans for Aberdeen harbour. He was most unhelpful. Certainly his letter is full of verbiage about the plans proving to make the harbour a viable concern. In his letter he says that the improvements appear to be relevant to the discovery of North Sea oil and he expects the oil companies to be at the base of any expansion programme because they should be charged proper rates so that harbour board can proceed with confidence.
Yet the Secretary of State for Scotland, welcoming the announcement about North Sea oil and the plans of British Petroleum to proceed, is reported in the following terms according to the Press and Journal of Friday, 17th December
Welcoming the announcement last night, Scottish Secretary Mr. Gordon Campbell said: 'I am delighted to hear of B.P.'s momentous decision. This is a massive investment in Scotland's future. It provides immediate opportunity for Scottish firms to participate in the opening up of the North Sea oilfield and a continuing base for expansion.… For their part the Government, including the public authorities concerned, are taking the needs of this new development into account in their provision of supporting services, including housing, roads and port improvements.'
Later, a Scottish Office spokesman emphasised that Mr. Campbell's reference to 'port improvements' did not apply to Aberdeen's proposed £1 million harbour expansion. He said: The improvements proposed by the Aberdeen Harbour Board are not related to the B.P. find. The Board and the Department of the Environment have discussed the proposals in a preliminary way and the Scottish Office have been involved.
The Government are completely uninterested in what is happening to the smaller ports. They may be interested in some kind of financial killing which some

of their friends might make by investing money in the larger ports of London, Merseyside, and so on—this may be the idea; I do not know—but they do not seem to be concerned about the smaller ports which are facing severe difficulties. I am advised that soundings in the market have made it clear that the market is not interested in coming into ports and harbours at this time.
I turn now to the curious doctrine of 2 per cent. above the current Government lending rate and its being increased progressively. It seems odd to suggest that it would help the ports to go to the open market, because the market is likely to say: "If you are able to pay 4 per cent. above the going rate to the Government, why are you not prepared to pay the same rate of interest, or marginally less, to us?" In other words, the market might be encouraged to be avaricious rather than to help. After all, the market has to try to get as good a return as it can.
I hope that all is not lost. Will the Minister tell me what authority the Government have for saying that grants will not be paid? The 1964 Act simply states "the Government may, with the approval of the Treasury", and so on. I know that "may" is permissive. They can presumably stop payment or refuse to give a grant in the same way as they may decide to give a grant. My fear is that by repealing the Harbours (Amendment) Act, 1970, which makes reference to Section 13 of the initial Act, the passage of this Bill will make it impossible for the Government to make grants available even if they are persuaded to change their minds. I know that the chamber of commerce, the harbour board, the town council and all concerned in the City of Aberdeen are trying to get the Government to change their minds about grants. If the Bill goes through in this form I do not think they will be allowed to make a grant. Will the Minister tell us whether this is so so that we can table Amendments to try to get him to change his mind?
If the only power left, with the repeal of the 1970 Act, is to make loans, should point out that the Bill is silent about the rate of interest. The Minister has announced an administrative figure which he can vary up or down at will according to whether he regards the policy


as working or not. If he thinks that interest at 2 per cent. is too penal, he can presumably reduce it to 1 per cent. to relieve local difficulties. But, as the Bill is silent about interest, will it be possible for the Minister to make loans at rates of interest lower than the current lending rate to help local authorities which are in difficulty or are having to finance a programme for which it is difficult to forecast precisely what the revenue will be? Will it be possible to make a loan with a deferred interest payment; that is, to give one, two or even five years' grace free of interest and then apply interest?
If we are to have a ports policy of any kind it must be flexible. There is no point in passing Bills through the House which are totally rigid in application, because the Minister may have to come to the House and say, "Though I have much sympathy with the policy, I am tied by Statute and it will require enabling legislation to change it."
I hope that the Minister will be able to dispel the widespread feeling in the North-East of Scotland that the Aberdeen Harbour Board has not been given much encouragement and that the Government's treatment of it has been shabby. I hope he will give every encouragement to go ahead with a proposal which will benefit not only the Aberdeen Harbour Board but the commercial interests of the whole of the North-East of Scotland. It is unfair that the harbour board should be asked to put a charge on rates applicable only to particular commercial interests to pay for a development which will benefit the whole of the North-East of Scotland.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I am not intervening to put a constituency point. Part of Shoreham harbour is in my constituency, but I am happy to say that it is a prosperous harbour which manages its own affairs extremely well and is not in any particular current difficulty. But I will give a word of encouragement to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), who spoke of Aberdeen competing with the Clyde. Harvey's Bristol sherry, which he might think would come from Spain to Bristol, actually comes to the Port of

Shoreham and then goes by road to Bristol. Such can be the competition which one port offers another.
In the last Session I was a member of the Select Committee which dealt with the Mersey Docks and Harbours Bill before it became an Act. In that capacity I learned quite a lot about the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I had to make up my mind, as we all did, whether that board was malingering as a lame duck, whether it was a lame duck suffering from a self-inflicted wound, or whatever was the trouble. At the end of the day the Bill became an Act which gave power to the board to write off part of the loans which had been made to it by bond holders. It also had power to issue equity to such people.
The Select Commitee was very concerned about this and made a special report to the House. I will quote one paragraph from it:
Your Committee are concerned that a private Bill should raise such a matter as the remission of debt by Act of Parliament. Having listened with great care to the detailed evidence they have found, on a division, that the Preamble is proved, having regard to the circumstances, which they do not believe could ever be repeated in exactly the same way. In view of this, this Bill should not be regarded as a precedent.
I shall return to that last statement later in my speech.
Against that background, I ask whether this Bill will permit advances to be made by the Government to help with the repayment by the Mersey Docks Company of the debts which are still outstanding but which may be written off or written down at the end of the moratorium period. Does the Bill give the Government power to do that? If it does, is it the Government's intention to do it?
This is very important because there may be various policies for the ports, but at least people who have lent money to a port would expect to receive fairly even-handed treatment within a short space of time from the same Government. I looked at the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). I am not an accountant. I looked at what is entitled Table 200 and tried to compare as best I can the position of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in 1970 with the position of the Forth Ports Authority, which is one of the two mentioned by my hon. Friend


the Under-Secretary of State, and also with the Milford Haven Conservancy Board.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had a deficit in 1970 of over £3 million but—and a mere deficit alone does not prove anything—its deficit was about one-seventh of its revenue. The deficit of the Forth Ports Authority was £567,000, about one-sixth of its revenue. The deficit of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board was about one-twelfth of its revenue.
Another column in Table 200 deals with the net interest charge, which is very important. I compared net interest charged to the revenue, because this is dead money; it is an overhead which has to go out. In the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board the net interest charge was about one-fifth of its revenue; in the case of the Forth Ports Authority it was about one-quarter of the revenue; in the case of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board it was about four-fifths of the revenue, so that practically the whole revenue went in interest charges.
It may be contended that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was in a different position from that of any of the other boards or authorities which may receive advances under the Bill. If that is so, it must be made clear in detail that will stand up to professional scrutiny. If the Mersey bond holders, who were affected by the Act of Parliament which remitted the debt of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to them, are to receive different treatment from that accorded to their opposite numbers on the Forth or the Clyde, or elsewhere, we have to be very clear that the circumstances on the Mersey were substantially different from the circumstances in these other authorities.
I do not believe that that case has yet been made. It may be made later but I hope that it will be made out early, because the Mersey bond holders were not simply those large City institutions which, for some reason or other, are supposed to be able to stand the writing-off of large amounts due to them—exactly why, I do not know. They were in many cases small people who put their money into what they thought—and they may not have been as prudent as possible in doing so—was a gilt-edged security.
Another Private Bill has just been passed by the examiners. This is the Milford Haven Docks Bill. The Select Committee which considered the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill said, I remind the House, that
this Bill should not be regarded as a precedent.
We all know what happens to precedents. Already this Session we have the Milford Haven Docks Bill. It does not exactly follow the pattern of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Act. It does not provide for the writing-off of debt but it certainly provides for a moratorium on interest by Act of Parliament. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would comment upon the Milford Haven Docks Bill and also on the effect upon the Milford Haven authority of this Bill.
I will roll all this together. What is the right policy for financing our docks? There can be argument about that, but when we have made up our minds as to what that policy is we must apply it even-handedly. The writing off of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board's debt has not yet been done because under the Act it was not to happen until the end of the moratorium period of three years' duration. We must make up our minds what is the right policy and then apply it even-handedly. The White Paper says, as my hon. Friend reminded us:
In normal circumstances there is no reason why viable ports should not continue to refinance debt as they traditionally have done—on the market: but if a basically viable port is unable to do so, loans will be made available by the Government for this purpose.
I think there is a non sequitur there, at least on the surface, because if it is viable I judge that the market would be a good place for that to be decided.
Paragraph 5 says:
Substantial short-term borrowing has exposed some ports to the problem of having to refinance debt in unfavourable market conditions".
I do not know how those market conditions are likely to be more unfavourable than the proposed 2 per cent. over the lending rate with rises thereafter. It may be a good formula. It may be exactly what the doctor ordered. I am not contesting that, but what I am inquiring about is how, if boards were able to pay that rate of interest, they would not be able to raise money on the market.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has given a great deal of attention to this matter, especially in the context of Mersey. Does he not agree that the unfortunate consequence of the Mersey affair—although the House mitigated the Government's original thoughts set out in their first version of the Mersey Bill—is that it will become progressively more difficult for public authorities of this kind to raise money because they will no longer be able to give the gilt-edged impression which, rightly or wrongly they were -able to give before?

Mr. Maddan: If they did it wrongly, it is proper that that situation should have ended and I do not want to rake over that position.
Annex 2 of the White Paper contains, in paragraph 1, the four criteria by which the National Ports Council will examine an authority's finances. I believe that a comparison of the finances of the Mersey authority and other authorities which may benefit under the Bill must be carried out with great thoroughness and published in full if it is not to be thought that we in this House have meted out with one hand in the last Session certain treatment to Mersey bond holders and we are now, in the next Session of the same Parliament, meting out entirely different treatment to those who have lent money to other authorities.
What is sauce for the goose must surely be sauce for the gander, and I await my hon. Friend's reply with a great deal of interest. Perhaps it may be possible for me to have an opportunity, if necessary, further to press the matter in Committee where, from the inquiries that I have made and the advice that I have received, I believe that I shall be able to do so, having read the Money Resolution as well as the Bill.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The longer I listen to the debate, the more I find this a bizarre Bill; but then we have a bizarre Government, so what can we expect?
I follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) and I am in tune with it. Paragraph 8 of the White Paper states:
Such loans will, however be made only to those port authorities who satisfy the National Ports Council that their financial prospects are sound.

I am not a financier and I have never worked in the City, but I once bought a house on a mortgage. It seems bizarre that a harbour authority should go to the Government for a loan on which the rate of interest is 2 per cent. above the market rate. If its financial prospects are sound, and that fact is verified by the National Ports Council, surely a harbour authority could get the money on the market at a better rate. I find this proposal rather unusual and I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly why the Government have put it forward. What is the philosophy behind this kind of, shall we say, step-by-step Government.
I intervene mainly because of the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). Unfortunately, at least for him, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the port of Hull. I must, without being churlish, give the Bill a welcome, though the Minister will gather that it is a most guarded welcome. It would be churlish not to welcome the possibility of £300 million, or a substantial chunk of that sum, being spent on developments to make our ports better able to compete with Rotterdam, Hamburg and other foreign ports.
I begin to shudder when I hear phrases such as "the Bill is not meant to cushion" as though the Minister is playing snooker. I visualise lame ducks hobbling to market and I begin to look at the Bill with a jaundiced eye, particularly when I see in the White Paper in paragraph 8 such words as "carry out a stringent analysis", in paragraph 9 reference to "strict financial disciplines and the reference in paragraph 10(b) to the rate of interest being 2 per cent. over the market rate, because that could rise. It could go up to 3 per cent., 4 per cent. or even 5 per cent. over the life of a loan. That seems uncanny and unusual in the matter of lending money. It looks as though the Government are acting like a penny-pinching firm of accountants and intend to exact their pound of flesh.
I suggest that the Government should consider what previous Governments have done about Public works and development in the past through the medium of the Public Works Loan Board. I am prepared to argue that we should consider what happens in Sweden. There is there a farm bank for development loans in agriculture. Instead of charging a rate


of interest 2 per cent. about the market rate, the bank provides loans on favourable terms to enable developments to be carried out. I should have thought that the State existed not to kick lame ducks but to help, in this instance, port authorities such as Aberdeen and others which needed help. The Government are carrying out their programme in the sacred name of City market ethics. I hope that Aberdeen will receive the help that it needs and will not have applied to it these strict financial disciplines.
As I said earlier, the hon. Member for Hallam referred to Hull. No doubt when I intervened I put my point rather clumsily, but perhaps I may try again to justify my attitude. When I hear the Minister, or anyone else talking about financial disciplines and about the financial analysis of ports and then going on to say that certain ports in the public sector such as Hull, Immingham, Goole and Grimsby do not do as well—

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD carefully tomorrow. I looked at the list of ports. The top part of the list referred to ports under the British Docks Board and Hull is one of them. The hon. Gentleman and I represent Yorkshire constituencies. I assure him that, being a Yorkshireman, I am as interested in the success of this port as he is, and I have visited it. The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake in taking a point on this issue. I was reading from a list published in the report. The report is "The Digest of Port Statistics" and I happened to cite the information made available in the context of how the ports are doing. The hon. Member is raising a point that is really irrelevant.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman must expect me, as a suspicious Opposition Member examining a bizarre Bill like this, having listened to the Minister and then finding one of his back benchers giving a list of the ports which are not doing well, to begin to think.
Here I put to the Minister a question called up from the vasty deep by the hon. Gentleman sitting behind him. Does he believe that these ports need the disciplines which he says they do—otherwise we would not have the Bill—and will he apply this same test, this same analysis and determination to the

public sector, which I take it is not included in the financial provisions of the Bill, meaning those ports of the British Docks Board? My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may well weigh in later with all his knowledge and expertise on matters concerning the Bill.
All I am saying is that as a Member for the City of Hull I would like the Minister to be quite clear when he speaks later and to state that he has no intention whatever of applying this kind of attitude or test to those ports that were mentioned earlier as not doing so well. I know what the present Government have done in other areas like the Clyde, and I do not want them in any way to start looking at the State sector in the way they are tending to do here.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I do not want to intervene too much, but I could have quoted the Manchester figures which are much better. This would have brought up unpleasant memories of two years ago when Manchester was one of the ports which definitely wanted to remain in the private sector. Surely we should welcome the trend that is taking place and the support for the concept of equity participation. The hon. Member has also brought in a most important factor, that of interest payments. I apologise for listing these ports that are now in deficit first. The hon. Member is too suspicious. I could have started with Manchester and referred to the profit that has been made, but that might have antagonised him.

Mr. Johnson: I accept that, but I listened to the Minister earlier when he talked about certain ports which may not be doing well at the moment and therefore need short term help but which in the long term are viable with good prospects. Although it has been said that Hull is not doing as well as it was—and I accept that—it has enormous potential and no Yorkshire Member of Parliament should ever think anything else. This Humber estuary has a long-term potential second to none, once we get our approaches from the west with the two motorways and get the bridge over the Humber. We are facing the North Sea and the middle of Europe and have an economic future second to none. We on the Humber all accept this, and I hope that the Minister will tell me later


that his attitude of mind or philosophy as embodied in the Bill in no way applies to the State sector to which our Humberside ports belong.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: I am sure that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench came this evening expecting to glow in the reflected gratitude of the Opposition for bringing forward this magnificent Christmas present at such a time. I suggest to the Opposition that they have been less than generous. He has come forward with a package which no matter how we look at it means £200 million with the possibility of £300 million. Surely on both sides of the House we must welcome this as another step towards strengthening port management and certainly the financial side of running our ports.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry to intervene so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but the Minister is giving nothing whatsoever to the ports except the right to borrow, and they then have to repay those borrowings at 2 per cent. above the current lending rate. They are not getting anything very spectacular in that.

Mr. Hill: Facilities are being provided for them to borrow at 2 per cent. over the Government lending rate. That is in the Bill, and no one is denying it. It is all very well saying that the bank will provide one with a facility at 2 or 3 per cent. over the lending rate if there is no money available. The Government are at long last making £200 million to £300 million available to ports not covered by the British Transport Docks Board.
Coming to the hon. Gentleman's point, the White Paper goes on to say:
The terms of such loans will be designed to encourage port authorities to continue to borrow on the market where they can (or, where they do borrow from the Government, to seek alternative sources of finance as soon as possible). They should also result in strict financial disciplines which, together with improved earnings, will encourage the market to resume lending to ports on an appropriate long-term basis.
This may be a viable proposition. It may be that the market is ready to lend to dock boards and harbour boards throughout the country, but I would hazard a guess that if there are poor

figures in the financial structure of any board going to the market it will have to rely on the Government rate of 2 per cent. over the lending rate until it can prove it is viable.
The only doubt in my mind—I am sure my hon. Friend is quite aware of this—is that the loan will increase progressively over its life. If the life of the loan is 10 years and it is increasing progressively, I am sure my hon. Friends would like information to be given to the boards on exactly how much they will be committing themselves to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) mentioned the British Transport Docks Board and Southampton, and on the Opposition side there was much discussion about Hull—which is apparently the finest port in the United Kingdom. That statement of course, is complete nonsense since the finest port in the United Kingdom is Southampton, and so it will remain for a very long time.
We at Southampton would not like to go to the market to borrow at this time. According to the statistics, in 1971 we lost £0·9 million. We have installed an integrated port communications system which gives supplementary radar information. This is coupled with a Honeywell computer and gives absolutely up-to-the-minute information on every movement throughout the port. That accounts for £250,000 of the £0·9 million.
Southampton is attracting, and will attract in the future, shipping lines that are using container ships. Are hon. Members aware that 1,000 ft. of jetty costs £5 million and uses 25 acres of land? In Southampton we are building another 6,000 or 7,000 additional feet of petty. If ports are to be modernised, they will need the whole of this £300 million. In Southampton we have brought in Devlin phase 2, and the port is now working for 22 hours of each day. This to some extent justified the £0·9 million deficit. This involved purchasing extremely costly equipment, and the port must have spare mechanical capacity to use on ships with tight schedules. The port is turning round 1.4 container ships every day with just two berths available.
The statistics show that £17½ million has been spent in Southampton. Hon. Members will understand why at this stage there is a loss, but next year and


for many years to come we look forward to a very profitable balance sheet.
In the context of the Common Market, Hull is looking to the future, as we are in Southampton. We hope that the Common Market will bring all that we shall ever want, but much depends on the labour force. The strike record in Southampton is excellent, with over 12 months of unbroken service to the shipping companies. There are few ports that can say that, and by "ports" I mean ports, not fishing villages and so on. Ports sometimes seem to include practically anywhere which has a jetty, but in speaking of the losses incurred in modernisation we must think of deep sea ports.
In the future there will be a great deal of modernisation in our western docks extension, and I am sure my hon. Friend has noted my Question on the Order Paper. We look forward to the approval of this by my right hon. Friend. Although Southampton cannot share in the benefits arising from the Bill, I welcome the measure, as I hope other hon. Members will.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) referred to me as being an expert but I hesitate to comment on the Bill, particularly as it is primarily concerned with finance and I am certainly no financial expert, although I have had experience of the problems facing the ports industry as my specialist field is shipping.
My constituency of Hull has the third largest port in the country and is facing many problems arising from the investment which has to be undertaken to enable the port to change over to the new tempo of trade. The Humber ports and many of the eastern ports are having to face similar problems, particularly in view of our entry into the Common Market.
The policy embodied in the Bill is the philosophy of the present Government and is contrary to the policy which was followed by the Labour Government. We have to decide how to encourage future potential growth in the ports. In my area the port is an important source of employment and in the ancillary industries which service it, and we have a great interest

in the policies pursued by Governments to encourage the growth of the port industries.
The Bill embodies the policy mooted in the White Paper "Financial Policy for Ports", Cmnd. 4794, and is committed to the market philosophy of introducing financial disciplines by means of which it is hoped to encourage growth. This has to be taken in conjunction with the ever-prominent selfish profit motive that will encourage people to pursue it and thereby bring about the growth that we all desire, while the central authority would hope to co-ordinate policy through the National Ports Council and would play the rôle of guiding, assisting and advising ports.
The Bill will go further in that it will attempt to impose financial stringency in analysing whether a port should be assisted by refinancing capital debts incurred by investment in certain projects. It is obvious that this sort of philosophy has failed. The Rochdale Report pointed this out in 1962 and called for a much stronger central co-ordinating authority. The recent example of the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board again points to a failure of this policy.
The Minister for Transport Industries has blamed amateur management for causing these problems and for reflecting such a poor profit record which has not attracted any private capital and has chosen to apportion blame for the lack of aggressive development in our ports. The provisions of the Bill seem to follow the same line by suggesting that if financial stringency is applied, growth and profit will follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West spoke of a 2 per cent. penalty. What may well happen is that in raising capital the industry will have to go cap in hand to the Government for refinancing capital debt. I hope that we get a reply on this point tonight.
There is sufficient evidence to show that the Government policy on ports and their development runs counter to the policy adopted by our major port competitors in Europe. I refer particularly to the competition which the Humber ports and East Coast ports in general face from such places as Rotterdam and Hamburg, which have aggressive development


policies. Those continental ports receive subsidies and they have become a gateway to the thriving economic markets of other countries. No obstacle is placed in their way and they have been given an impetus to achieve full economic growth.
Another point to be borne in mind is that a policy involving financial stringency will place a further burden on our exports as port charges rise to meet extra debt charges. This in its turn will create further economic problems.
I should like to quote from a Press notice issued by the Department of the Environment on 22nd June in which the Minister dealt with ports policy. He said:
The crucial test by which a port's future will be determined is the service which it offers to shipowners and users. A shipowner is not nowadays tied to a particular port. He is like a housewife choosing the shop which gives him the best value, free to go to the port that suits him best.
We have heard a great deal about shopping around in other respects and it is now being applied to one of our basic industries. That is the idea, and I hope to bring out the importance of it later in my speech because it imposes severe penalties on certain port authorities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that shipowners should be tied to specific ports?

Mr. Prescott: That is an important point. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient I shall deal with it, because I hope that he will address himself to it. I say that because I think it is clear that the policy embodied in the Government's White Paper fails to meet the problems of our ports.
The difficulties of the Humber ports are those faced by any port competing with continental ports or, for that matter, with ports on other parts of our coastline. For that reason I hope I shall be permitted to spend a few minutes drawing attention to the financial problems of Hull which are in no way assisted by the policy set out in the White Paper.
We should like a good deal more information about investment decisions and the capital involved in them. I made the mistake of thinking that this Bill

was to be introduced after the recess. However, it having made its appearance earlier, I hope that there will be an opportunity in Committee for hon. Members to deal with these matters in more detail.
The growth of Hull is important, not only for Yorkshire but for the country as a whole. It has tremendous potential, but it badly needs investment. It is for that reason that I stress the importance of the financial policies pursued by the Government. In my view some kind of maritime industrial development programme must be considered and requires massive investment.
Hull has seen a rapid decline in traffic in coal, timber and raw materials. This has been due partly to the fact that Commonwealth countries are now processing their own materials. Another contributory factor has been bad management decisions. I agree with the Minister for Transport Industries that the ports industry has suffered to a large extent from amateur management. That criticism cannot be confined to the ports industry, of course. In my view it is true of much of our industry, from Rolls-Royce downwards. The fact remains, however, that management decisions involving the removal of railway facilities from our docks have encouraged the reduction in traffic. When there is a reduction in traffic there is a corresponding reduction in the income from charges, and this gives rise to serious problems for ports like those in the Humber area.
If a port wants to grow and develop the new techniques which are necessary if it is to face the growing competition from European ports, an enormous amount of capital investment is required. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) that the massive capital required by a growing port cannot possibly be recovered in the short time that Parliament expects of the industry. Financial criteria are placed on port authorities which have to raise capital by means of charges, and that in itself compounds their problems. When charges are increased, there is more reluctance to use the port and, as a result, traffic begins to fall.
The problem of a port area like the Humber is that it has to raise capital. The flow of traffic is important for this


reason, and here I deal with the Under-Secretary's question to me. He asked me whether I was suggesting that shipowners should be restricted to certain ports; in other words, whether a shipowner should be told which port he should use. People will go where the services are cheapest. This raises a problem because millions of pounds have been involved in building big port complexes and this money has to be recouped. The small ports, such as Scarborough, Flixborough, Whitby and Selby, situated on river estuaries, attract vessels bringing in timber and earn themselves "pin" money. Of course it is much cheaper at the smaller ports because the labour is cheaper and capital charges are nowhere near as large as at a large port. Container work is done off the dock estate. As a result, the traffic is syphoned away from the major ports and the ports authority has to recover debt and interest charges from a decreasing amount of traffic.
This is not the way to deal with the problem and ensure that our major ports attract the main traffic. It is a silly policy which will operate eventually to the detriment of all ports. The Government's policy will not solve this problem because the only answer is strong central control by the ports authority.

8.47 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: This is an important Bill for port development. When such a Bill involving new arrangements for dealing with loans and port restructuring is laid before the House it is obvious that many people connected with ports have been in touch with the Government. Are the people who will be mainly concerned once the Bill becomes law in support of the Minister? Do they believe that this is the right way in which to develop competitiveness in the ports and to get rid of many of the ancient practices? Hon. Members get all sorts of representations on Bills like this because of their political philosophy or their interest in development. This Bill seems thoroughly satisfactory.

Mr. Mulley: May I help the hon. Lady? The issue which concerns the ports is that instead of having a grant from public funds they will have to borrow, and at very high interest rates.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but I do not

share his point of view. I want the ports to be competitive, something which has never interested the Labour Party. Many industrial losses resulting from their Administration have caused us a lot of trouble. It is kind of the right hon. Gentleman to try to help me, but he is not helping me because I do not share his financial approach.

Mr. Mulley: I have been in the House a long time and have often heard the hon. Lady argue eloquently for Government aid for her area. I am surprised that she is not asking for a continuation of that aid for the Port of Tynemouth.

Dame Irene Ward: That may be, but I am a very flexible person and I judge everything on its merits. There is no reason why I should not support the Bill.
Every time I sail through Rotterdam I wonder how our ports will ever compete. I am glad that my Government are making the ports as up-to-date and modern as Rotterdam, so far as that is possible. My opinion of Rotterdam may be that of an amateur, but amateurs sometimes sec more than the professionals.

Mr. James Johnson: Surely an amateur like the hon. Lady or me must know that much more help than anything in the Bill is given to Rotterdam. The Dutch do not have a Bill like this.

Dame Irene Ward: I could not agree more. For development, with which the Labour Government were singularly unconcerned, one must have a sound economy and money available. They had all sorts of ideas but did not know how to pay for them. My Government's ideas might not be quite so all-embracing but at least they provide a sound financial basis on which to operate. Will our ports benefit and become competitive as a result of this Measure? That is the important question.
A lot has been said about Hull and ports in Scotland. I want to talk about the Tyne because we are losing out at present and it is clear to those who live and take an interest in my part of the world that the Tyne is declining whereas the Tees is building up, and this does not suit me at all.
Incidentally, in the old days, when the body which looked after this areas was


the Tyne Improvement Commission, before nationalisation, it was much nicer to me and to my ideas than has been the case under nationalisation. I hope that when I next lunch with those people, particularly as private enterprise has come into the matter now, they will be nicer than they were obliged to be under the disciplines of the Labour Government.
Will the Tyne be able to develop under this and other legislation so that it can stand on its own feet and employ the numbers of people who used to earn their living on the Tyne? In other words, shall we be able to reorganise and become a competitive port once again?
I was recently in Europe with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and met people who were very knowledgeable about ports. Although we were there dealing with the probation service and similar matters I suppose it was unavoidable that the subject of ports would crop up. They told me that our system of cranes was deplorable and that the cranes we used in our ports were not capable of lifting very much.
What action does the Minister intend to take to stimulate port authorities into making us as competitive, if not as large, as Rotterdam? Are we to have the cranes and other modern equipment we need?

Mr. Prescott: I agree that our ports need modernising. Is the hon. Lady aware that Conservative market criteria are hard to apply when ports must first ensure that they are capable of attracting sufficient traffic and, second, that there is a sufficient return on the investment? The trouble today is that under the policies of the Conservative Party the ports are having to compete against each other and all sorts of other things.

Dame Irene Ward: I have faith in this Government and I am beyond the partisan arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
My main point in rising is to ask whether our ports will be able to become competitive. I hope that they can, so that when I sail through them I can feel as proud as the Dutch feel about Rotterdam. I wish our ports luck in the future. I hope that they go ahead to greater things so that when we enter

the E.E.C. they will be in a position to share in the trade which is desperately our due.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I intervene only briefly. I start by apologising for being absent during the opening of the debate. I was detained at a meeting and was unable to be present. But as this matter affects directly my constituency, or could do so, it is obviously of very considerable importance to me, as it is to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I was a bit astounded at the hon. Lady's comments because she has fought vigorously for her constituency in the past. No one would doubt that. Here we have a Bill which does nothing to help us on the Tyne. If anything, on the face of it, it would appear to make matters more difficult. As the hon. Lady has been a doughty fighter in the past, it is surprising that she should have given up the struggle now.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman need not bother about me. I know exactly what I am doing, and what I am doing for the Tyne. On the whole, the Conservative policy will serve our area better than that of the Socialists.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We have been told that faith moves mountains, but I am doubtful whether it will succeed on this occasion. But I associate myself with the hon. Lady in her questions to the Minister as to what precisely would be the relevance of the Bill to our area. Only a few days ago I was raising matters in the House at a late hour of morning about the situation on the Tyne. We have had to face a situation on the Tyne—one of the safest harbours, if not the safest, in the North-East of England—of a decline in the major trade of coal over the years, and this had not yet been replaced by an adequate alternative trade.
The tragedy for some of us, and for my own port of Tyne Dock, is that, after building up the iron ore trade and installing a great deal of equipment for it of a relatively very modern character, we now find that that trade is almost inevitably moving down to the Tees and will be lost, with a further loss of work for men in the area added to the dreadful proportion of over 15 per cent. of men unemployed in my constituency.

Mr. Prescott: A free market.

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is a very serious position. Therefore, naturally and rightly, the Tyne Port Authority is concerned with attracting new trade to replace the trade it has lost. In order to do that, it must concern itself with the facilities available. I hope that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is naturally concerned about his constituency, do not suggest that there are not other major port areas, such as the Tyne, which have a very important part to play in the future.

Mr. Prescott: To get the record absolutely straight, in illustrating the Humber I said that it was illustrative of a number of problems in a number of port areas. I am sure that it affects a number of areas.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend is right, and I appreciate fully the problem he has raised about some of the smallest of the ports fighting for a limited amount of traffic, especially in timber, and the implications of this for any port attempting to invest in modern facilities in a big way.
An area like the Tyne is always faced with a challenge. On the Tyne we are told that we have to prove that there is traffic to justify investment in the modern equipment required. We have a circular argument: how can we hope to attract the traffic to replace what we are losing unless we have the courage to undertake that first investment?
One of the important criteria in considering the Bill, at any rate for us on the Tyne, is whether it offers us any hope of helping to carry out that new investment. I do not see that it does. If the Minister can tell us that it will make new facilities available, we shall be delighted to hear it, but we very much doubt whether that will be so.
We also have the tragedy that big reclamation undertakings are being started on the Tyne, including the reclamation of the Jarrow Slake, a huge area, in the hope of making facilities and sites available for new industrial development, but there will be no grants for that work either. If it had been a local authority development, they might have been available, but it is a port authority development. The Bill does nothing to

alter that situation. I admit that it is a situation of long standing.
I very much fear that the Bill, which has had a pretty tepid welcome in the House, will not help us on the Tyne at all. If it does not give us the opportunity to help ourselves and modernise our own facilities, when will the Minister bring forward new proposals that will enable us to do so?

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With permission, I should like to reply to the debate.
It is interesting that the House should have spent the larger part of today's Sitting debating with some intensity a matter of a million pounds or so to be added to the Civil List whereas when we come to a Bill disposing of £200 million or £300 million of additional lending facilities—

Mr. Mulley: May I get the record straight? We are not giving an extra £200 million but are raising the lending limit to that figure. There is already a limit of £125 million.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but I was just drawing attention to the curious paradox that there has been a great deal of oratory on an expenditure of £1 million, whereas tonight when we are dealing with much more substantial sums the House, I regret to say, is comparatively empty.
The debate has ranged very widely. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) referred to the Government's policy as that of a Shylock. That is a curious description. We are making available to the ports industry some £200 million of loans, yet he repeated that it is a matter of penny-pinching, typical of Shylock.

Mr. Mulley: If the Government lend £200 million at 2 per cent. per annum to start with—and we do not know what it will be later on—they are making a cool £4 million a year, and that is quite nice for anyone.

Mr. Griffiths: If the right hon. Gentleman felt in a generous mood, would he be prepared to lend in the circumstances of some of our ports? That is the crucial point.
I should make it clear at the beginning that the Bill does not apply to British


Transport Docks Board ports. A number of hon. Members have referred to the problems of the British Transport Docks Board. However, I cannot deal with them, because they are not contained within the Bill. There is no question of the British Transport Docks Board either asking for or being given loans under these proposals.
The Bill is not designed to provide for the development of new works. It is designed to finance the renewal of existing capital debt. Therefore, many of the questions which have been put to me are irrelevant to the Bill. However, I will deal with each of those points when I can.
The Bill is necessary because many of our ports have got into debt and are finding difficulty in refinancing that debt when some of it matures. The House will have many and various views why our ports are in debt. Some hon. Members will put most of the blame on managements; others will put most of the blame on the unions. I think that we must accept that, whatever the measure of blame between those two groups, there are a number of secular and technological changes in the nature of the ports industry and in the quality, character and direction of our trade which have created new situations. Therefore, we must look at the problem as a whole.
The uncertainty under which ports have had to operate, in part due to the proposals of the Labour Party to nationalise them and the change of policy brought in by this Government has made it the more difficult for ports to refinance maturing bonds when they have become due. The Bill is necessary to deal with the problem of refinancing capital debt; it does not deal specifically with anything else.
I will deal with the particular points which have been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked about consultations. We have had the most detailed consultations, in particular with the National Ports Council, which will be an essential element in carrying out this policy. We have every confidence that it will assist us in doing so. My hon. Friend particularly asked, as did the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr.

Blenkinsop), about the effect on the Tyne ports. If the Tyne ports have capital debt—I am advised that they have—it is open to them to apply, via the National Ports Council, to the Government for financial support in refinancing their debt. But I should also make it plain that the Government hope that many of our ports will be capable of refinancing their debts in the market, as many of them prefer and intend to do. Therefore, I should be wrong in forecasting that the Tyne ports will need the Bill. It is a matter for their judgment.
I was asked about the current rates of interest and the amounts which would be chargeable. The Government's lending rate is currently 6¼ per cent. With 2 per cent. added, the rate payable on a loan of this kind would be 8¼ per cent. That is a good deal lower than the rate which was chargeable only a few years ago when Bank Rate in this country was substantially higher than it is today. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about exorbitant interest rates when, as a result of the reduced Bank Rate which this Government have brought about, the total interest which will be chargeable, including the additional 2 per cent., will still be lower than that chargeable under the Labour Government.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Surely the pertinent point is how the rates of interest compare with those of our competitors. At a time when rates are generally coming down, surely this is a fairly disastrous position.

Mr. Griffiths: I made the important point that the rate for loans will be 8¼ per cent. even including the 2 per cent. chargeable under the Bill. The rates for loans that have already been made to the two ports I mentioned range from 8 to 8⅜ per cent.
I was asked what increases there are likely to be after two years. There is no fixed amount. It will be flexible. It will depend upon the market situation, as it is bound to do, for if ports find it easier to go to the market for their money, plainly they will not be coming to the Government. Whatever the policy of the Opposition may be, it is the policy of the Government that the ports should be, as far as they can, encouraged to get their money from the market. Over


a period of time, it may be that tile increase would be about ½ per cent. every one or two years, but I cannot give figures now. I can only say that we shall be flexible.
I was asked why there was to be a 2 per cent. premium over the Government's lending rate. We fixed this figure to provide a reasonable incentive to go to the market. We want to make sure that Government loans are not a soft option. The market rate itself will also be higher than the Government's lending rate. No one suggests that on the market one can obtain rates at exactly the rate set by the Government. It is wrong to say that there is a penalty of a full 2 per cent. over what it would cost to go to the market. It is the Government rate plus 2 per cent., and that might be very different from what the market would charge.
I was also asked about port modernisation grants. This grants scheme was ended by my right hon. Friend on 30th July for good and proper reasons. The Bill does not have any effect on new development schemes. It deals only with the renewal of existing capital debt, and, therefore, a debate about grants under the ports modernisation scheme is irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Mulley: This point should be clarified. I understand that it was a purely administrative decision by the Minister not to pay grants. The power to do so remains. When the Minister made his announcement, we thought this Bill might deal with the point but I understand it does not.

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend ended the scheme because it was not doing any good. Despite the assistance given under the previous Government, there is no evidence that the 20 per cent. grant rate led to any significant increase in or acceleration of major capital developments by ports authorities. I make it clear that when I say that it was not doing any good I am referring to the refinancing of debt. That at least it was not assisting.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The House wants to be clear about this. Is the hon. Gentleman saying specifically that nothing in this Bill affects the Government's administrative power to introduce grants if they so desire?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend decided that he would no longer make available ports modernisation grants because it was the policy of the Government not to pay investment grants but to turn over to a new system. It would have been inappropriate to have continued ports modernisation grants while discontinuing grants to industry. That is the short answer. For the future, I cannot tell.
I come now to the position of Aberdeen. It is not a fishery harbour for the purposes of the Bill, and, therefore, would be eligible for loans for debt renewal if the port were to apply and were to meet the necessary conditions. What the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) was talking about was new development, not about money for re-financing. I understand that the Commissioners of Aberdeen Harbour want a grant. They can, of course, have a loan under the Harbours Act, if approved, at the normal Government lending rate, but this Bill, I repeat, deals with re-financing. The hon. Gentleman asked whether interest rates could be lower than the Government lending rate. There is nothing in the Bill to stop this but it would be contrary to Government policy to go in for selectively lower rates.
Bristol will not get a grant for the West Dock scheme because it is too late to qualify. Borrowing for the West Dock scheme is not covered by the Bill because the loans are only for debt renewal and not for new development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) raised the question of Mersey. This, as he properly recognised, is a complex issue, and one to which we might return in Committee, but my short answer to the point that he raised is that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was plainly not viable, and, therefore, its position its different from that of the ports that will be covered by the Bill. This policy covers those ports which are viable, or which can quickly be made so to attract the finance which the Government are making available. Mersey was not viable. It was insolvent. There therefore has to be a capital reorganisation scheme under the recent Act to which my hon. Friend contributed so much. That capital reconstruction scheme is necessary simply because the board


was not viable This fact alone would have made it ineligible for loans under the Bill.

Mr. Maddan: Would my hon. Friend ask the National Ports Council to publish figures which would make the point that Mersey was less viable than the Forth ports authority and perhaps Milford Haven, which are to receive benefit?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall be glad to ask the council for any figures that will throw light on any point that my hon. Friend wishes to illuminate. The Bill covers those ports which are viable, or which can quickly be made so under arrangements which the council will discuss with them. We were, and still are, faced with the fact that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was not viable, that it was insolvent, and in the fact that a capital reconstruction scheme has to be undertaken there is proof positive that it was not viable and was not solvent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), as always, has done a great deal of homework on this issue, and he asked one crucial question: how are the ports doing? The short answer is that the ports are doing better now because confidence is returning and because my right hon. Friend's policies are commercially realistic and put the emphasis where it should be; namely, on persuading and, indeed, encouraging ports to return to equity financing by way of the market, which can make a far better judgment of the viability and commercial competence of the ports.
I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that, as regards Mersey, the chairman, Mr. Cuckney, to whom the whole House can pay tribute for what he has done at that port, says in his annual report:
I am cautiously optimistic … I think it is gratifying to have some evidence that the unpalatable measures we have had to take so far have been justified in that we are beginning to create the base on which to establish a thriving and profitable port even though that will take a few years to achieve in full.
The short answer to my hon. Friend is that confidence is returning, and that the ports are doing better.
I turn finally, to the general points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He

suggested that the policy of grants to the ports which he administered under the previous Administration was a better approach. We on this side of the House disagree. His policy is that of the soft option. The right hon. Gentleman wants to provide grants, or he wants to provide loans at specially favoured rates. But all the evidence is that the policy of soft options does not produce more efficient ports. On the contrary, the evidence is that those previous policies have landed our ports in increasing difficulty and in debts which they are unable to re-finance on the market.
Our policy is different. It is not a policy of subsidy. It is not a policy of nationalisation. It is a policy of commercial realism and financial discipline, and I believe that to be right. Our policy is founded on encouraging ports to go to equity financing and will help them over the difficult period when they need to re-finance some of the debt that has been incurred.
One question raised was: how could we be sure that money would become available from the market as and when ports wish to get out from under the rates of interest that would be charged? How can we be sure they will attract money from the market? I believe the answers are these: first of all, with more confidence, with greater trade, with better financial disciplines and better managements, ports will achieve better results and higher profits; and it is the higher profits and better results that themselves are the best advertisement for a port going to the market. There is no joy to be won in the market for the port which makes losses. Our concern is with ports that make profits. We believe that those are in the best interests of the country.

Mr. Prescott: May I ask the Minister to address his attention to the point I was developing that, as he points out, this leads to refinancing of capital debt and in that sense it is not only the British Transport Docks ports which face problems? There are other authorities to which this Bill applies which are facing the same problem with some ports siphoning off trade, which will increase the problems for the larger ports which will have greater capital debt problems than smaller ones.

Mr. Griffiths: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman likes the soft option and dislikes competition, and once again I can say that that is the divide between the two sides of the House. I can set his mind at rest to this extent: fishery harbours, which include many of the smaller ports to which he referred, will not be eligible under the Bill. I do not for one moment regard it as desirable in principle that shipowners should be placed under the constraint that they must go to certain harbours and not others. I believe it is in the general interests of trade in this country that they should have the widest possible choice in the harbours which they use.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has referred to fishery harbours. Will he make clear that the Government still give grants to fishery harbours, certainly in Scotland?

Mr. Griffiths: Of course I will make that clear. The right hon. Gentleman who has not ventured to appear in this House until a few moments ago has now come here and stood up at the Front Bench on what is plainly a political fishing expedition for which I give him no credit at all.
There are encouraging signs of progress in the ports industry as a whole. In the past year there has been substantial progress. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome this since he represents a port. There has been substantial progress toward improving the revenue position of the industry. Much closer attention has been given to costs and improvements in financial and commercial methods. I believe these are the fruits of the freedom and encouragement that we have given the industry to act on a commercial basis. They are also products of the impetus given by the new National Ports Council and its wider terms of reference. It is because we want to keep up the momentum that this Bill is necessary. It will help the ports to pay their own way.

Mr. James Johnson: Since the hon. Gentleman picked me out for special mention as being a Member for a port that has been discussed tonight, and

since I was missing from the Chamber for a few moments, may I ask him whether during that time he gave any answer to the question I asked earlier, whether or not this was the beginning of a Government policy towards the State sector, a policy of giving loans on these iniquitous terms?

Mr. Griffiths: I had sat down, but I will set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I said several times that British Transport Docks Board ports are not included or covered within this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Committal of Bills.)

HARBOURS (LOANS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for loans to harbour authorities—

(1) it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue to the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund of sums necessary for making loans under that Act to harbour authorities for the purpose of enabling them to pay capital debts, repay temporary loans and pay off overdrafts;
(b) the issue out of the National Loans Fund to the Secretary of State of an amount equal to the principal of loans made by him to harbour authorities for that purpose before the passing of that Act;
but so that the aggregate amount of loans made after the passing of that Act under section 11 of the Harbours Act 1964 and under the said Act of the present Session and of amounts issued to the Secretary of State as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above shall not exceed £200 million or, if so provided by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, £300 million;
(2) it is expedient to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of the principal of, or payment of interest on, loans made by him under the said Act of the present Session or any such loans as are mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) above.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Orders of the Day — SIERRA LEONE REPUBLIC BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

ISLAND OF ROCKALL BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Clause 1

INCORPORATION OF ROCKALL INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM AS PART OF THE COUNTY OF INVERNESS

9.30 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'into' to `Scot-land' in line 10.

The First Deputy Chairman: Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 have been selected. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took with Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, leave out known as 'and insert called', and Amendment No. 7, in the Title, line 3, leave out 'known as' and insert 'called'.

Mr. Ross: It does not make sense to take Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 together.

The First Deputy Chairman: I understood that the ruling had been made clear that Amendments Nos. 4 and 7, if debated at all, would be taken with Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Ross: Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 are alternatives, although Amendment No. 7 could stand on its own. It is an alternative to the phrase to which I take strong exception and I would rather it were taken separately.

The First Deputy Chairman: It would not be appropriate to alter the decision

now, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman can be directed separately to each Amendment.

Mr. Ross: That is not very satisfactory. To whomever it was made clear, it was not made clear to me.
I congratulate the Government on accepting my advice that this important constitutional matter should be taken on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs.
The Long Title reads:
An Act to make provision for the incorporation of that part of Her Majesty's Dominions known as the Island of Rockall into that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith.
Not satisfied with having this offensive wording in the Long Title, the Government repeat it in Clause 1, line 9:
shall be incorporated into that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland".
If Amendment No. 3 were accepted this would read:
shall be incorporated into Scotland".
I think that would be clear and would not be liable to be misunderstood. I cannot understand the Government's reason for insisting on leaving in the body of the legislation what has already been made obscure in the Title.
On Second Reading the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, more or less repeated what was said in another place by his noble Friend the Minister of State when her attention was drawn to the phrase "known as Scotland". The answer then given was that this was the phrase used in the Act of Union and had been hallowed in that legislation. I feel there is something distasteful in the phrase "known as Scotland". There is almost the implication that that is not its real name and that, for reasons unstated, there has been resort to the name of Scotland when it should be called something else.
We are familiar with this kind of phrase in respect of certain individuals in public life. This may involve people who have created a reputation under a certain name in public, commercial or business life. I can think of ladies who have made a reputation under their maiden name and, even after marriage, have continued to be known by that name. That is


understandable. But I just do not understand why a similar phrase should be applied to Scotland. We all know that certain people adopt other names when their legal names may be awkward or unattractive-sounding. We can think of pop stars who have changed their names. I do not think there is anybody who rejoices under the legal name of Engelbert Humperdinck; and the name Peggy Hookham is not particularly attractive for a ballet dancer and she prefers to be known as Margot Fonteyn. The same thing is true of Lulu, and no doubt of Cilia Black and many others.
We all know that certain people are set out in the Police Gazette as known as going under various aliases and often have a string of names, but there is certainly no justification for the phrase "known as" to be applied to Scotland—unless it is thought it is better known by such names as Caledonia, Scotia, Strathclyde, Pictland, Alba, or Dalrada. Surely nobody in these modern times would apply such names to Scotland.
The land has been known as Scotland for over a thousand years. The "known as Scotland" nonsense starts with the present administration. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is bursting with a learned speech, but he must contain himself. I refrain from explaining what the present Government is "known as" in Scotland. I do not think I should be allowed to use language to allow me to describe how the Conservative Government is viewed in the eyes of the Scottish people. The Government obviously are out of touch both with reality and with history. The Under-Secretary of State who is in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I dare say certain aspects of law in Scotland—

Mr. Peter Mills: He is doing his job very well.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) had better come to our next fisheries debate, when he will be able to see whether hon. Members who represent Scottish fishing industries feel that that is true.
The Under-Secretary wallowed in Unionist patriotism. He wrapped himself in the Union Jack and was delighted to follow the example of his noble Friend

the Minister of State in this respect. It was a fascinating exercise though perhaps rather embarrassing, but it had nothing to do with what we were discussing.
I want to know why the Government use the words "known as". What the hon. Gentleman has said is totally irrelevant and not very accurate. As is my custom, having made mention of the Act of Union, I referred to it. I discovered no mention of the words "known as Scotland".
The Act of Union for ever united our countries into
one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain.
Article IX spoke of
that part of the United Kingdom now called England
and
that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland".
There is no mention of "known as".
Then I referred to the Act of Union (Amendment) Act, 1707. Section 2 says
within that part of Great Britain called Scotland.
In Section 4, just to put the matter in perspective, one finds
into that part of the Kingdom called Scotland.
In 6 Anne cap. 53, establishing a Court of Exchequer, we find a slight variation:
in the north part of Great Britain called Scotland.
In 1708 the Parochial Libraries Act refers to
libraries in that part of Great Britain called England.
The phrase "known as" does not appear. It goes on:
Whereas … in the South part of Great Britain called England and Wales".
Time and time again after the Act of Union the phrase adopted is "called Scotland". There is no use of the phrase "known as". There is something much more respectable in quoting the proper name and prefacing it by the word "called".
Then I went to the Circuit Courts (Scotland) Act, 1709. There again one finds
that part of Great Britain called Scotland".
It is not until one has ploughed through many more Acts, those of 1765, 1771,


1789 and 1799, dealing respectively with banknotes, highways, property and colliers, in all of which the phrase is
that part of Great Britain called Scotland",
and we come to the Act of Union with Ireland, that we get
that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland".
Thereafter we shift from "Great Britain" to "the United Kingdom".
The Habeas Corpus Act, 1804, refers to
those parts of the United Kingdom called England and Ireland.
The Jury Trials (Scotland) Act, 1815, refers to
that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland.
One finds none of this "known as" that is supposedly hallowed in this legislation.
By 1815 there must have been new draftsmen in the Departments of State. They ceased to use the term "called" and were content with "in Scotland", "in Ireland" and "in England". However, there was a slight reversion to type in 1882 in the Turnpikes Act, where one finds
that part of the United Kingdom called England".
I do not know whether there was an uproar about that, but for another 10 years we find "in Scotland", "in England" and "in Ireland".
The last reference that I have been able to find is the Game Act, 1832, referring to
that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland".
Clearly, there is no justificatifion for the phrase "known as" in history. If the Government wanted to stick to what had been used in the past, they would have used the word "called". This is why I gave the alternative Amendment No. 4. They can have it as being
… incorporated into that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland".
I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks this is nothing at all. It was raised in another place and it has been raised by me because I find it rather distasteful to be told that I am a native of:
that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland".

I am sure that this was not done by a Scots draftsman. The Government probably dug up someone who has been waiting in the Treasury or maybe the Foreign Office, some relic of colonial days, who was dying to use the phrase.
9.45 p.m.
I know the difficulties, because we have annexed many places over the years since 1707, but we have never annexed anything to Scotland or, I doubt, to England or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I am sure that the Minister and the Lord Advocate are discussing this matter and deciding to accept Amendment No. 4. I would think all the more of them if they did. They have their island; I am leaving them with that, although we can deal with that point on Amendment No. 7 dealing with the Title. It is a mistake and not one I propose to put right in the Title because the mistake was made in 1955 when this little bit of rock that juts out of the sea was taken over. It is already over-populated although no one lives on it, and no one could live on it unless the hon. Gentleman has some idea of planting sugar beet on it, or some equally strange notion.
The rubric speaks of "Incorporation of Rockall". This is a little Bill, but it is important historically and we should try to get it right. I commend Amendment No. 3, which would mean incorporation into Scotland, and incorporation into that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, which has all the backing of tradition and legislative history.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said about the inappropriateness of using the term "known as Scotland". I also support him in his contention on the Government's claim that this phrase was hallowed by the Treaty of Union. I take my right hon. Friend gently to task for talking about the Act of Union because, as he knows, there are two Acts which set up the union between Scotland and England and I hope that English historians and schoolteachers will take note of that and get it right in the history books.
Two Acts of Union were necessary to create the consent which joined the sovereign country of Scotland to the


sovereign country of England. Perhaps my right hon. Friend was thinking of the Scottish Act of Union, which is in substantially the same terms as the English Act, except that Scotland is put first. The phrase "that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland" or "England" is used less than the straightforward construction for which my right hon. Friend has argued. In most cases the references are to "Scotland" or to "England" simpliciter.
Turning to those articles of the Treaty of Union which are still extant today, one finds that articles 6, 9, 18, 19, 21 and, I think, 22 contain these straightforward references. On many more occasions than not, the reference is direct and only on a few occasions is it to "that part of the United Kingdom" called Scotland or England.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on his obvious researches. His erudition has impressed the House as it does on so many things.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I would not say that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a matter of subjective judgment and I prefer to be generous to the right hon. Gentleman.
But that is the extent to which I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He touched only briefly on Amendment No. 7. I believe that "the Island of Rockall" is the right description. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of geography were as good as his alleged knowledge of old Statutes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), with his great knowledge of Scottish geography and his taste for walking in these areas, will know of many similar places which are properly described as islands. The right hon. Gentleman is lowering the island's status to call it anything else and I am glad that it is called an island in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of the "island" of Eddystone?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of the Faroe

Islands and many other islands? We should give Rockall the status it deserves.
The right hon. Gentleman did not make great play with Amendment No. 3. This legislation will incorporate the Island of Rockall in the United Kingdom and make it subject in all respects to United Kingdom sovereignty. The Clause is worded in a way that gives this point the prominence it requires.
The main burden of the remarks I made when replying to the debate a week ago was that there was nothing novel about the use of the expression
part of the United Kingdom".
There are precedents for it and I quoted some in that debate. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the Act of Union. I, too, have done some research. Consider the Representative Peers Act, 1847, which was an interesting Measure. It was designed to correct certain abuses which had frequently prevailed at the election of representative peers for Scotland. This phrase occurred in that hallowed part of legal history.
Coming more up to date, in the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, there is a reference to
parts of the United Kingdom".
That phrase appears several times in that Measure. It is, after all, a perfectly accurate description of Scotland's constitutional position to say that it is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Being an entirely accurate and correct description, it is right that it should be in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman's main complaint is about the use of the phrase "known as Rockall." This causes him concern, and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) feels equally strongly about it and supports the Amendment as a result.
The use of the phrase "known as" is absolutely correct. What is Scotland if it is not generally known as part of the United Kingdom? It is absurd to argue otherwise. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are simply playing with words. Why should "called" be more accurate than "known as"? The right hon. Gentleman called in aid the 1707 Act, which used the phrase "called", and the hon. and learned Member for Leith referred to the use of the phrase " part of the


United Kingdom called Scotland" in one instance and "part of the United Kingdom called England" in another.
If it has been called England or Scotland for so many years, surely by this time it has come to be known as England or Scotland, simply through natural development. This is a reasonable, accurate and sensible legislative description as a result of developments over the years and I cannot see any reason for making the change proposed by the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there are certain titles of honour in this country which it is reasonable to call in aid when discussing this subject. For example, Lord So-and-so will be described in law as "known as Lord So-and-so." The holder of an honorary title is not described in the same terms as the holder of a peerage. It is, therefore, legitimate for Scotland to be "called" rather than to be simply "known as" by repute.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Perhaps in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the members of his profession add honour to the status of a title in that way—and it is a question of judgment whether they do—we can refer in this instance to what is "known as" rather than what is "called", though I do not believe that this is an important point.
I am concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's obsession with this play on words for no particular reason. It is not backed by strong arguments. I can only think that the right hon. Gentleman's worry is that in all his years as Secretary of State for Scotland he did not succeed, for all that he tried, to incorporate anything into Scotland—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Island of Rockall Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]

ISLAND OF ROCKALL BILL [Lords]

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I return to the point at which I was interrupted in my peroration. When the right hon. Gentleman becomes concerned about this play on words, it is merely an expression of sour grapes for his failure to carry out the kind of imaginative act that the present Government are doing and merely to cover up his deficiency over those long years in office.
The one thing to which I took exception was the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Unionist principles of the party to which I belong and to my party's being so enamoured of them that it had to extend them to this Bill. He referred to the use of the words and description of people "known as" as used to apply to aliases and so on. If that is the best showing that the right hon. Gentleman can make tonight, he deserves the description of him that one so often hears in Scotland, "The ex-Secretary of State known as Weary Willie."

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I came into the Committee tonight believing that we would hear some short, important speeches about a matter of some constitutional significance for Scotland. I am very disappointed that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) chose to take so long making a speech which will be remembered and known as one of the most disappointing speeches we have heard from him. I am sorry that he did not respond to what is an important constitutional occasion.
This is the first time that that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland has been extended since the Princess of Norway brought Orkney and Shetland as her dowry and extended the old Kingdom in that way. When I read the Bill I was delighted to see that there was a certain constitutional nobility of language. I feel that this has been muddled somewhat by the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight. It is very good to see in a Bill the traditional ceremony with which the boundaries of our Kingdom are extended. It is a pity that the right hon.


Gentleman chose to indulge in hair-splitting and nit-picking about the use of the words "known as", suggesting that "called", which had been used in a number of Acts, including the Turnpikes Act, would be more appropriate.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of something he has evidently forgotten since he stopped teaching our children in the schools of Scotland. The language we use is living and constantly changing. The words "known as" have a larger significance than the word "called". I believe that there is a greater nobility about them in this context. The right hon. Gentleman has been called many things. He has been called "obstinate" and "obdurate" and other things that I should not wish to say for fear of being discourteous to him. He is known as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, as the right hon. Gentleman and as the late Secretary of State for Scotland. I should have thought that he would have been one of the first to welcome the extension of the dominion over which the Secretary of State rightly exercises jurisdiction.
Scotland is known as Scotland now. At one time it certainly was called Scotland. Its progress in history over the years now earns this added dignity. I welcome the Bill for its dignified language and the new dignity it gives the extended Kingdom, a Kingdom in which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have had a greater pride and joy than he has shown tonight in his cheap and mischievous speech.

Mr. Ross: We should have welcomed the presence of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on Second Reading—

Mr. MacArthur: I was here.

Mr. Ross: —not only the hon. Gentleman's presence, then, but his words. On that occasion, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we looked at the matter in a much wider aspect, as we can still do when we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." But we are now dealing with a detailed series of Amendments. If the hon. Gentleman objects to my approach to the legal language, he had better look up the record of how the Bill was dealt with in another place, where some of his noble Friends paid the 
same degree of attention to the phrase, and did not regard it as having the same measure of nobility as the hon. Gentleman does. But then, he may well have a greater obsession with, and interest in, nobility than I have.

Mr. MacArthur: I have a great interest in the nobility of language, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not share that interest.

Mr. Ross: I share that interest, but my judgment and opinions on it may well be different from the hon. Gentleman's.
I can remember sitting on a Committee looking into the Naval Discipline Act. We could change anything in it that we liked, but the one thing people were concerned to retain was the language of Samuel Pepys in the Preamble, because of the nobility of that language. It had not very much to do with modern affairs. Indeed, to certain people it may even have been construed as offensive, but because we were concerned about nobility of language and tradition the House continued to use those words. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking nobility of phrasing, he is much more likely to find it in the traditional phrases of this Legislature than in what he justified by the changes of a living language. I doubt very much that he will find so much dignity in much of our language of today compared with the language of earlier years.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the way in which he again completely missed the point. He told us all about the use of the words "part of". Nobody is concerned about the use of that phrase; nobody took exception to those words. That must mean that the hon. Gentleman had no justification for his use of the offending phrase. So he directed his remarks towards another phrase which had nothing to do with it.
No one in this House objects to Scotland being part of the United Kingdom except possibly the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who is not present. He accepts Rockall. In fact, he thinks that it was always part of the Western Isles, so far as I recall. But the Minister spent a lot of time talking about "part of". He told us that there was nothing novel in it. With


respect, no one was arguing about it except the hon. Gentleman himself. We have always accepted that Scotland is a constituent and important part of the United Kingdom. If some of the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends had fought as hard to maintain that position in the last six or seven years I should have welcomed their support. There is a certain faction in Scotland which is desirous of ending that relationship, but I am the last person the hon. Gentleman should talk about in that respect.
The Under-Secretary went on to deal with the actual words. I remind him of what was said in another place by a Member of the Government and what he himself said on Second Reading when exception was taken to the phrase "known as". The noble Lady the Minister of State said that it was hallowed in the Act of Union. With respect, it was not. The hon. Gentleman accepted that but went further. He said that he was prepared to quote Statutes which were passed when I was Secretary of State in which that phrase was used. I am still waiting. I am prepared to bet that if he were to keep the poor civil servants in the Scottish Office searching for such a Statute, they would never find it. That phrase was not, and has not been, used. So if he wants to take refuge in tradition, if tradition matters to him, he should accept the Amendment, which is to use the word "called".
I draw attention to what happened in a Statute when the description of Scotland as "part of" the United Kingdom fell altogether. Without any dubiety the phrase "in Scotland" superseded "that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland."
The hon. Gentleman says that we are playing with words. I have always been taught that if one wants to be sure of the interpretation of words—they can be strange in Statutes—one should rely on words which have been used and have

created no difficulties. The phrase which has been used hitherto—I quoted plenty of examples—is "called Scotland".
I should like to correct my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) on one point. I am sure that the Lord Advocate would have corrected him. The expression is not "known as Lord So-and-so", but "commonly called Lord So-and-so". That is the more usual phrase in that respect.
The Under-Secretary said that Scotland has been known as Scotland for a long time. Scotland was known as Scotland for a long time before 1707. If the correct phrase to which no exception was taken then was "called", and if the Government take refuge, mistakenly, in tradition and in Acts of Parliament, let them get it right and use the word "called". It is not an important point. It is not a question of dignity of language; it is a question of accuracy. On the interpretation of Statutes, it is far better to rely on a word which has been used and has not been hitherto misconstrued. If the hon. Gentleman does not prefer the nobility of the word "called" to "known as", in the view of people who have taken an interest in this matter both in another place and in this House, he is in a minority.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Out of courtesy, I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman. He has introduced no fresh arguments. He has merely indicated again that he is really playing with words. He referred to Pepys' Diary and to the language of Pepys which is carried forward into the Naval Acts. I will remind him of a phrase often used by Pepys. The right hon. Gentleman has caused us this evening, as he has so often in the past caused the people of Scotland, to "itch mightily". I must advise the Committee to reject his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'Inverness' to end of line 12.
The Amendment would leave out the words,
… and the law of Scotland shall apply accordingly.
If we left them out, the law of Scotland would still apply. I think there would be no doubt about that. If Rockall is part of Inverness or
… part of the District of Harris in the County of Inverness …
or whatever we like to describe it, the law of Scotland will apply. I do not know any other part of Inverness to which the law of Scotland does not apply. Whether or not these words are there to make it absolutely clear that the law of Scotland should apply, I do not know. Perhaps many people would wonder whether there are other laws in respect of other parts of the United Kingdom which might apply to Rockall. There may be some hidden meaning in these words, and this is where we come to the importance of Rockall. It may well be, for reasons that we have not discussed, that there is a question as to whether Rockall should be called an "island". There may be some hidden reason for ennobling it or raising the status of this barren rock to the position of island. If it is raised to the position of island, then it has some relationship, I presume, to Inverness and to the coast of Scotland.
I chanced upon the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. There are one or two of these Acts which happen to be in the Library. One picks them up and finds something of interest. Section 634(1) refers to:
… the superintendance and management of all lighthouses, buoys, and beacons shall within the following areas be vested in the following bodies …".
I shall not refer to sub-paragraph (a) or (c) but to sub-paragraph (b), which is of interest to us tonight. It says:
Throughout Scotland and the adjacent seas and islands …".
I presume that under this Bill the island of Rockall becomes an island of Scotland as part of
… Scotland and the adjacent seas and islands …".

That was the application of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to Scotland. Presumably, that definition will still apply.
Then, of course, there are the Fisheries Acts. I remember distinctly the Herring Fishery Act, 1867. Section 11 states:
… 'the coasts of Scotland' shall mean and include all bays, estuaries, arms of the sea, and all tidal waters within the distance of three miles from the mainland or adjacent islands.
I presume that this provision, which related to the three-mile limit, will apply to the 12-mile fisheries limit.

Mr. Norman Buchan: There will be a problem from 1982 onwards in respect of the Common Market.

Mr. Ross: There will indeed be a problem. If we are going to make these protected waters for Scottish fishermen, we will need policemen.

Mr. Tom Driberg: My right hon. Friend referred to the word "adjacent". How far off can "adjacent" be?

Mr. Ross: That is very important, and I am glad that the Lord Advocate is present. The fact that he is here is an indication of the importance of this issue, and no doubt he expected that question to be asked.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): It is the next Amendment in which I am particularly interested.

Mr. Ross: That may be so, but we are interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion of this Amendment. He is our legal guide to the interpretation of Statutes. We are dealing with the phrase
and the law of Scotland shall apply accordingly.
I want to know what the effect would be if those words were omitted. In my innocence, in the interests of simplicity, and preferring the dignity of language, I should prefer those words to be omitted.

Mr. MacArthur: It would lose a lot if those words were omitted.

Mr. Ross: No. There is more attraction in simplicity than in complexity and the use of unnecessary words. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who is keen on the flow


of language, will no doubt agree with me about that.
I want to know, in relation to the definition of islands and adjacent seas, what implications the law of Scotland will have for Rockall. What implications will it have in relation to the three-mile limit, and the twelve-mile limit when it is changed to six miles?

Mr. Laurance Reed: It seems improbable that this island could be considered as adjacent to Scotland, because if that were the correct interpretation of its position it would not be necessary to have this legislation. The territorial waters Order in Council would have drawn the base lines from Cape Wrath to Rockall and then back to the Mull of Kintyre. That would have been a dramatic development. This rather undermines the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Ross: After the Bill is passed Rockall will become part of Scotland. It will become part of the District of Harris in the County of Inverness. From that point of view there may be a dilemma about the distance, but I should have thought that "adjacent seas and islands" were something on which we could get guidance from the Lord Advocate. I should have thought that they were adjacent to this part of the coast of Scotland.
I want to know how the Convention of the Law of the Sea will apply to this new island when it is part of Scotland. The Continental Shelf Act could be of tremendous importance. Have we proclaimed our rights over this island within the meaning of that Statute? The hon. Gentleman may say that that is not the law of Scotland, but to the extent that we are part of the United Kingdom it follows that that Act is part of the law of Scotland. The phrase "the law of Scotland" may be confusing. It depends upon what it comprehends. I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us how the law of the sea will apply to the waters around Rockall.
Reference was made in another place to the provision of a new fisheries protection vessel, as though it was directly related to Rockall. I am sure that it was authorised while I was Secretary of State. It seems to have entered some

body's mind that the waters round the island might have to be protected. The law of Scotland will not apply to anyone who lives in Rockall; there is nobody there, and there is not likely to be anybody there. There is no landing spot as yet. But we never know. There may be considerable developments in contemplation, and if there are we should like to know. I sincerely hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to provide us with answers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has spoken at great length about the merit of simplicity and the merit of few words. The Committee would have more respect for him if he would set an example by uttering just a few words instead of all these rambling thoughts. Had the right hon. Gentleman either listened to or read my speech in the Second Reading debate on the Bill he would know that I said:
Once the island is incorporated in the United Kingdom, it will become subject to the provisions of the Fishery Limits Act, 1964. It will also be possible for an Order in Council to be made under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964 …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 190.]
It is there clearly spelt out, but the right hon. Gentleman's intention is not to seek elucidation but merely to speak, and we appreciate why he does it.
The only merit in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was in the first two sentences when he argued, perfectly fairly, that it may be unnecessary to have in the Bill the words which he suggests should be left out. But it is my view and the view of my right hon. and learned Friend that it is desirable to include in the Bill express provision to make it absolutely clear that both the civil and criminal law of Scotland are to apply to the island and to the territorial sea surrounding it.
As I said on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to fill what has been described as a legal and administrative vacuum. The Bill affirms beyond peradventure that the law of Scotland shall in future apply to the island of Rockall. Technically, there is some merit in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to leave out these words but, on the other hand, this is a short Bill and, for the sake of clarity, we have the space to do this which is not always available


in other Bills. This is a practical argument.
Had the words been left out, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have been on his feet asking for clarity and saying that it should be spelt out that the law of Scotland shall apply. Whatever we had put into the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman in his usual way would have sought a stick with which to beat the Government. On this occasion, in view of the shortness of the Bill, the Government felt that it was worth while to spell it out in detail so that everyone could be clear that the law of Scotland applies accordingly. There is merit in having these words in the Bill, and for these reasons I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: There is one question I wish to ask. I am curious to know why this legislation is being rushed through at this moment of time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Rushed?

Mr. Buchan: Indeed. It can never be argued in this House that the time taken on any matter is determined by the number of lines contained in legislation. The Scottish Office should have enough experience to know that that is not the case. I am concerned that this is being rushed through at this time a month before we sign the Treaty of Accession and at the same time as we have had announcements about Common Market agreement on fisheries—

The First Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: Yes, I am doing so, because the Amendment is connected with the law of Scotland. The law of Scotland will become closely involved with the laws and regulations of the Common Market once we go in. Particularly relevant to an island, of course, is the matter of fishing limits. What will be the position around the waters of Rockall when the derogation ends in 1982? We have tried to get an answer on this matter on earlier occasions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I hope the Under-Secretary of State will now tell us. Will we have a veto which will allow—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: The Amendment relates to the law of Scotland and, as I have explained, the law of Scotland will become involved with the various regulations passed by the Common Market countries and will be subject to certain measures of the Common Market.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: My hon. Friend is anxious to know what will be the law of Scotland on fishery limits around Rockall in the year 1982 if this legislation goes on the Statute Book.

Mr. Buchan: The Under-Secretary of State referred on the previous occasion to the fishery limits legislation as well as to the Continental Shelf Act. Therefore, this matter becomes highly relevant, and the question to which I seek an answer is: Will we have a veto to allow the derogation of the 12-mile limit to continue after 1982? I should like an answer "Yes" or "No".

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Amendment again, but I would point out that he is stretching it a little.

Mr. Buchan: I am stretching it, but it is relevant to the law of Scotland once we enter the Common Market. Our law will be greatly affected. This is an island—surrounded by water, surrounded by fish—and this is where the fishing regulations of the Common Market will apply, and this must affect the 12-mile limit I want to know whether the arrangements are to be contined after 1982. I require a simple answer, "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Ross: The Minister will appreciate the importance of even an exploratory Amendment which enables an hon. Member to raise a matter as important as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). Many people wonder why, following annexation of Rockall in 1955, the Government are now seeking in 1971 to incorporate it into a part of the United Kingdom—or, to put the matter as in the Bill, as
… part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland and shall form part of the District of Harris in the County of Inverness …


and to give it legal status. I think it is relevant to know why this is being introduced at this time.
We were told on Second Reading that this was an anomaly which the Government were seeking to put right. I have my own ideas as to how and why this arose. One can understand our concern when we are dealing with how fishery limits will affect the fishing industry in 10 years' time.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was not enough to have heard his speech, but that I should have read it too. That is inflicting too great a burden, even upon me. I can rely on myself for the answers. What has not been clearly spelled out is whether the Government are to lay an order in respect of the Continental Shelf Act. The hon. Gentleman has made it clearer tonight that the fisheries limits around the coasts of Scotland will apply in relation to the island, as he calls it, of Rockall, so we will have a 12-mile fishery limit. The question arises whether that places obligations upon us and whether we are able to enforce the law of Scotland upon the island of Rockall. He mentioned civil and criminal law. I do not think there will be much trouble about the mainland—if one can misuse that word in talking of the mainland of the island which is just barren rock which cannot sustain human life. I presume that the application of the law of Scotland to Rockall will be to do with fishing and probably mineral exploration.
We have no sovereignty over the sea bed—not until we use whatever powers there may be under the Continental Shelf Act which still gives no sovereignty on the surface at a particular point beyond our territorial limits. It becomes all the more important to know how the Government will protect whatever rights we have there with the passing of this Measure and the passing of the Order in Council under the Continental Shelf Act. Can we have answers to these points and will the hon. Gentleman make clear to my hon. Friend that whatever happens to our fishery limits in Scotland will also happen to whatever fishing limits we take unto ourselves in respect of Rockall?

Mr. Laurance Reed: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if exploration licences for oil and gas are given around the rock, and derricks are installed, then fishing will be excluded because under present law all fishing vessels are not allowed within 500 metres of derricks and the limits are about to be widened under current negotiations? If there are enough derricks round the area then what will happen in the future will be irrelevant because fishing vessels will be excluded.

Mr. Ross: It may be that what the hon. Gentleman says is true and the question of the rights of other people comes into this because he knows that the fishermen of Britain have been fishing around this area. They too will be concerned. What will happen to them and their rights under other legislation? How will we enforce these new rights? My hon. Friend talked about the definition of "adjacent seas". Fishing vessels which may be adequate for the protection of our fishing rights may be far from adequate for the protection of these new responsibilities. I am surprised that a Money Resolution has not been presented along with the Bill—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not include that in this Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am not including it. I am simply pointing out the dilemma in which we may find ourselves, in that, as a result of the Bill and these new responsibilities, we may have to spend money. But there is no Money Resolution, and the Government may find difficulties here.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I have been tempted to speak only by the flippant attitude of the Under-Secretary. He gave us no reason for writing in these words, except to fill the page, which is not a good reason. I thought that the fact that the island was being incorporated in the United Kingdom automatically meant that all the United Kingdom laws would apply. We have not spelled out all the other laws which would apply—the Immigration Bill, for example. But we should not write in these words without very good reason.
Some hon. Members opposite laughed when it was suggested that the Bill was being rushed through. We would get on much faster if we had a clear answer on this. I am at a loss to understand what it is about the law of Scotland which makes it necessary to be so explicit about the island of Rockall. It seems to make the matter more complicated.
If the Under-Secretary is totally incapable of giving us a direct answer, perhaps, even yet, the Lord Advocate might be induced to reply. We have always been told how blessed we are to a Lord Advocate who actually sits in the House, and have been taunted about the years of the Labour Government—and even before—when the Lord Advocate was not a Member.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) is not only almost as deaf as his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) but he is nearly as loquacious. I explained earlier that, as we are doing something of a constitutional nature, it helps to spell out our action. This provision adds clarity to the Bill and spells out the legal position beyond peradventure.
The answer to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is that the law which applies to fishing matters concerning Rockall will apply in just the same way as it applies to the rest of Scotland. What we are doing here will make no difference whatever in that respect.
I assure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock that the same means of protection are open to us in relation to the Island of Rockall as are open to us in relation to any part of the other islands off the coast of Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It does not help the Committee or advance the debate if the Minister simply rises to his feet, repeats what he said previously and claims that that makes the matter clear beyond peradventure. I am still far from satisfied about the inclusion of these words.

Mr. Ross: The Minister must learn to reply to our questions properly. I have never known of a Bill being improved by the insertion of unnecessary words. The

hon. Gentleman claimed that these words could be added because there was ample room in the Bill. That sort of light-hearted approach will not do. If the availability of space is to be the criterion, then I can think of many new Clauses that could be added, including one to—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member must address his remarks to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Ross: The Minister said that one reason for including these words in the Measure was that there was room for them in the Bill. If that is the reason for their presence, then I can think of other words that should be added.
Is the Minister aware that the implications of this provision for the Continental Shelf Act, fishery limits and other legislation might not have arisen if he had given a proper reply? If, as he says, the Bill will not be altered by the presence or absence of these words, why include them? I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he is ever in charge of a Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee—and I see from the expression on the face of one of his hon. Friends—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The question of the Scottish Standing Committee does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that it does not, because we could say plenty about that at present.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make another effort at saying exactly how this makes it simpler and how it is that an island can, by statute, be incorporated into Scotland and the law of Scotland not apply to it. We are incorporating the island into Scotland. Anyone would have thought that automatically the law of Scotland would apply to it. But no, the Government must say:
and the law of Scotland shall apply accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman knows that it is unnecessary. It is an indication either of his weakness or of his stubbornness that, having accepted that the Amendment is right, he does not say that the Government will accept the Amendment.
This is one of our troubles. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is


empowered to accept any Amendment. If he is not, it is rather unfair to the House, he having accepted that the Amendment is correct and that nothing disastrous would follow from its acceptance—except that the Bill would be shorter. Let us think of the money we should have on the printing of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should say that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 12, at end add:
'except that Rockall shall not be regarded as part of Scotland or the United Kingdom for purposes connected with the erection and maintenance of any navigational light there'.
The object of the Amendment is simply to probe. On Second Reading I asked the Government under what specific legal umbrella they proposed to proceed to erect and maintain a navigational light on Rockall. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replied to the effect that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act do not preclude the Crown from establishing and maintaining a light in these waters. That was a singularly uninformative reply. Had it been informative, perhaps this probing Amendment would have been unnecessary.
The object of the Amendment is to point to and underline the fact that the obvious legal umbrella under which to establish a navigational light on Rockall—which we all accept as desirable—is Section 634 of the Merchant Shipping Act, to which reference has already been made, which set up three general lighthouse authorities, the general lighthouse authority for Scotland being the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is one of the brightest beacons, as a member of that Commission.
Do the Government intent to proceed under this particular umbrella of the law of Scotland? Reference has been made in the previous Amendment to the importance of the words "the law of Scotland" for the purpose of clarity. I pursue that and say that for the purpose of clarity may we have it elucidated whether the Government intend to go under Section 634 of the Merchant Shipping Act,

1894? If not, under what specific legal authority do they intend to proceed?
Closely associated with that is another question with which obviously the Committee is very much concerned, that is, under what legal provision the necessary finance will be forthcoming. Clearly again, if Section 634 of the 1894 Act is the legal umbrella covering the exercise, there is no problem, because there is ample provision in that Act for financing a necessary light.
To complete this part of my argument, I do not doubt that had Rockall been a colony of the United Kingdom—that would have been one way of dealing with it—there would have been provision which might just have been stretched to cover the erection of a navigational light on Rockall under the appropriate Sections which deal with colonies. There are difficulties about that, because it is necessary to get the consent of the colonial legislature, and Rockall does not have a legislature.
Under what legal umbrella do the Government propose to carry out the necessary occupation of Rockall by way of establishing a navigational light there? There is no doubt that the Bill is part of an exercise of occupying Rockall under international law. It is not enough simply to claim a territory; one must also take effective occupation, and one of the ways to do that is to erect and maintain a navigational light. That would be very useful to our fishing boats and other vessels.
There has been reference to a proposed Order in Council dealing with the continental shelf. I hope that the Government also have in mind an Order in Council to set out the territorial waters and fishing limits around the island. That would be of immediate importance to fishermen in the area. Fishermen from my constituency fish off Rockall, and their experience in recent years has been that large numbers of French trawlers have been fishing those waters. This is a very important matter for the fishing fleets of this country.
Effective occupation of a territory previously unoccupied can be claimed under international law not merely by erecting and maintaining a navigational light but also, for example by erecting a relay radio station. There are powers, if


the Bill is enacted, for the Government to carry out that necessary task under appropriate Statutes dealing with marine telegraphy. There is a need for an automatic relay station in the area. I am told by fishermen from my constituency that there is a radio blank between the Flannan Islands and Rockall under the present marine radio service from Oban and Wick.
I hope that we shall have clear answers to my three questions: under what legal umbrella are the Government proposing to erect the light on Rockall; under what Vote is the necessary finance to be provided; are the Government proposing an early Order in Council to outline the fishery limits in the area and the limits of the territorial seas?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has predictably raised a number of interesting points, and particularly an interesting legal point. I am obliged to him for giving me some notice of it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, which he adumbrated with his customary clarity, comes to this: the Crown, having divested itself of its prerogative powers under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, does not have any prerogative powers left to bring about the facilities it is intended to bring about under the Bill, and accordingly the Amendment is necessary to exclude Rockall and the proposed light from the general statutory provisions.
I do not wish to get deeply involved in a detailed exposition of the nature of prerogative rights or the circumstances under which they can be narrowed or curtailed, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with my general proposition. It is a fundamental proposition in considering a legal problem of this nature. The prerogative rights of the Crown are not affected by statute unless the intention of Parliament to bind the Crown is clear and unmistakable. In other words, if prerogative rights are to be cut by Statute, the Statute must either say so expressly or that must follow as a necessary implication from the wording of the Statute.
11.0 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned with, first, the erection and,

secondly, the maintenance of any navigational light. There is nothing in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which expressly excludes the prerogative right of the Crown to erect a navigational aid if so advised. Equally, there is nothing in the Statute which, by necessary implication, excludes the right of the Crown to construct a navigational aid, least of all in its own territory.
The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses have statutory powers in this connection under Section 638 of the Act, inter alia, to erect or place any lighthouse wherever they consider appropriate.

Mr. Ross: In Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: Yes, in Scotland. The jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses is restricted, broadly speaking, to Scottish territorial waters, with the exception of the Isle of Man. Although the Commissioners have statutory powers to do this kind of thing, they could exercise them, in 1894, only with the consent and approval of the Board of Trade—now of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The restrictions are to be found in Section 640 of the Act. Likewise, they can be directed under Section 641 to carry out work of this nature, but there is nothing in the legislation which derogates from the prerogative right of the Crown to erect a lighthouse if it deems it advisable.
Having preserved the right of the Crown to do that, it follows that if the Crown has the right to erect a light it equally has the prerogative right to maintain it. In other words, Section 634—which, on the face of it, confers absolutely on the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses the duty and obligation of superintendence and management of all lighthouses in Scottish territorial waters with the exception I have mentioned—does not apply to a lighthouse or a navigational aid which has been erected by the Crown.
That is my primary submission. There is nothing in the 1894 Act which derogates from the prerogative right of the Crown to construct a lighthouse, and it follows that there is nothing which derogates from the primary right of the Crown to maintain and supervise or manage any such lighthouse. I readily accept that, in the last resort, this is a


matter which could be determined only by a court and I therefore propose to put forward an alternative submission in the event of my primary submission being proved to be wrong.
My alternative submission, briefly, is that if we proceed on the basis that the Crown has been deprived of its prerogative rights regarding superintendence and management of lighthouses by virtue of the wide provisions of Section 634, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses can fulfil that statutory obligation in a variety of ways. They could do it themselves, they could do it by engaging independent contractors or, as in fact has been arranged, they can do it by arrangement between themselves and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses cannot cope with this exercise themselves, because they do not have the equipment and financial resources. A light, even to be maintained, let alone constructed, on Rockall is beyond the resources of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses at the moment. Accordingly, in the knowledge of their limited resources, they have readily accepted that they are not able to comply with a statutory obligation of that kind. Therefore, an arrangement has been reached, as was said by my right hon. Friend in reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), between the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that a light will be maintained by the Government until such time, should it arise, that the jurisdiction for maintenance could be transferred to the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.
The hon. and learned Member for Leith asked about finance. I am advised that this matter falls within the Vote of the Department of Trade and Industry and that it can competently meet this expense. This is an outlay which is justified.
I am sure that the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses would not want an Amendment to the Bill along the lines of that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that he readily accepts that, because he knows that it would mean that the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses would be excluded until such time

as a statutory Amendment were made. The Commissioners would not like to be precluded indefinitely in this way.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about fishery limits. They would automatically apply. An order under the Continental Shelf Act will be considered in due course, although no immediate order is contemplated.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), at an earlier stage—

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to a new point. He mentioned that the fishery limits would apply automatically. I do not think that quite answers my question. I want to know the limit of the territorial seas round Rockall. That determines fishery limits. I want to know, for example, whether it will be a six or 12-mile limit. I -want to know the base lines from which the fishery limits are to be set.

The Lord Advocate: I am not sure that I entirely follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting at. The fishing limits will apply in the ordinary way. This is an island off Scotland and the normal fishery jurisdiction limits will apply until such time as they may be altered in future. I will not venture any views on what may happen in 1982, which somebody mentioned. I am not dealing with that point at the moment. The fishing limits will apply in the ordinary way.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked about the definition of the Continental Shelf. He will be aware that the Continental Shelf is not defined in the 1964 Act, but that Act implemented the United Nations Convention on that matter. As the right hon. Gentleman showed an interest in the matter, I will give him the details. It is defined as (a) the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the area and (b) as the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coast of islands. That is the definition by which the international agreement would apply to Rockall under the Continental Shelf Act.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having raised the point, and I hope I have given a reasonably clear answer. There are other arguments one could adduce on this matter about the nature of prerogative rights, circumstances in which they are curtailed and circumstances in which they are asserted. I do not want to go into that. It seems to me that under the standing statutory provisions with which we are concerned there can be no curtailment of the prerogative right to erect a lighthouse, and it therefore follows that there is no curtailment of the prerogative right to maintain it. If I were wrong on that, the statutory duty imposed by Section 634 on the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouse could be fulfilled by an arrangement such as that we have entered into. This arrangement has been welcomed by the Commissioners and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, I am sure that the Amendment would not be welcomed by them. I accept it is a probing Amendment. I hope, in the light of these explanations, that he may be disposed to withdraw it.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: May I press the Lord Advocate on the point about territorial waters which he has not dealt with to my satisfaction? A problem was raised during the Second Reading debate as to where exactly the line will be drawn round the island of Rockall. I did not press this in detail because I took it for granted that the Government would deal with it fully. Hasselwood Rock lies 1½ cables from the island of Rockall proper and one or two other rocks dry to some extent with some tides. Where will the baselines for territorial waters be drawn? Will they be confined to the complete circumference of the rock itself or will they extend a little further, as would appear reasonable and possible under the terms of the international law of the sea?

The Lord Advocate: Only this afternoon I read an interesting book on Rockall and my attention was drawn to these little rocks. I understand the rock to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred is very close—two cables is a very short distance indeed. I am willing to look into that point and let the hon. and learned Gentleman have a considered and careful answer. I should not like to give an off-the-cuff reply. I should

have thought its materiality is rather limited becaue we are dealing with a rock which is defined as an island with one or two other rocks round about. I should not have thought it of earth shattering importance whether the baselines were drawn from the island of Rockall or from one of the minor islands round about.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I asked a parliamentary Question as to whether Hassel-wood Rock and St. Helens Reef were included in our claim for sovereignty over the area. The reply I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland was that these two rocks were included inside the territorial waters of Rockall. If they are, they are not within the internal waters of Rockall and therefore they are not taken into account for the purposes of the baseline.

Mr. Buchan: This is imperialism by stealth. This is news to me. I had hoped for a much clearer indication of any imperialist intention on the part of the Government Front Bench. On the point of the prerogative of the Government, I find to my astonishment that there is subsumed within the province of the Commissioners a responsibility for either the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General to carry out an annual inspection on a round trip of the various lights. Will the trip include the island of Rockall and associated colonial territories? Or, perhaps, in view of the Government's intention to cut down on public expenditure, is that particular privilege to be forgone?

The Lord Advocate: I assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that the present Lord Advocate has been too busy to take part in any of these cruises, although I hope that it may be possible for me to do so during the coming year. If the duty of surveillance is being taken over by Her Majesty's Government in this case because the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses do not have the resources to do it, the Northern Lighthouse vessels will not go to Rockall. The surveillance will be done by ships of Her Majesty's Fleet.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: This is all rather unsatisfactory. The Lord Advocate has said that much of the interpretation depends


not upon his opinion but upon the courts. We were told that this was all terribly simple and now it transpires that it is not. We have incorporated into Scotland, and therefore into the remit of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, the island of Rockall. It has been put within the remit of the Commissioners because, quite gratuitously, we were told in another place, and it has been repeated here, it is proposed to put some kind of light on Rockall. Rockall will be in Scotland once the Bill is passed.
But the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, is equally clear. Section 634 says:
… the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys, and beacons shall within the following areas be vested in the following bodies:
Then comes subsection 1(a), which refers to the position of England and the Channel and so on. Subparagraph (b) says:
Through Scotland"—
which in future will include Rockall—
and the adjacent seas and islands, and the Isle of Man, in the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses;
Subsection (1) goes on to say that these various Commissioners shall be
… referred to as the general lighthouse authorities …
The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says that the Crown has still got the prerogative right to erect a lighthouse. Surely it is equally clear that the Crown has, in the terms of the 1894 Statute, divested itself of
… the superintendence and management of all lighthouses …
within Scotland to the Northern Commissioners. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Commissioners have not got the resources. It would have been as well to make the situation perfectly clear either in this or some other Bill as to how this matter is to be dealt with. This is a practical as well as a legal problem. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it might well be done on the basis of an agency and allowing the Department of Trade and Industry to do the job directly. But the superintendence and management will still rest with the Commissioners. I doubt whether he is going to get away from the fact

that as Lord Advocate he has a direct responsibility as a Commissioner. He cannot divest himself of the surveillance, because the responsibility is his under Statute. I think the Lord Advocate has got himself into a difficulty and it might have been advisable for him to have looked more closely into the matter and to have accepted the Amendment in case there is a difficulty. We are concerned about this not just for the present. Rockall is just a rock. We refer to it as an island, but it is way out in the Atlantic about 160 miles west of St. Kilda. It covers an area about equal to that of this House, and is 70 feet high. There is no landing place on it. Nobody lives there. No one could live on the island.
We welcome what the Lord Advocate said about the Continental Shelf. No one asked for it, although the matter was raised on Second Reading, but we are glad to receive that information. This may be of considerable importance in the future, and the law set down in the Bill, and other laws, too, may be more important than they seem now. I had hoped that the Government would do something better than merely say, "This is it, and we hope that it will be all right, but we shall not know until it is challenged in the courts." Nobody has complained about what we have done in relation to territorial waters and fishing limits, but that does not mean that nobody will complain in future. If we accept this responsibility, we shall have to accept the legal consequences of doing so and carry out certain works to make these waters safe for shipping.
I hope that everyone has read the book which I am glad the hon. Gentleman has returned to the Library so that if anyone has not read it he will be able to do so. It is entitled, "Rockall", by James Fisher, and it is on the topmost shelf in the second room, under "Natural History".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My copy comes from the National Central Library in London. I did not want to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of the copy in the Library. Knowing the difficulty that he has in moving away from the House of Commons, I thought it only fair that I should borrow a copy from somewhere else.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman does not really know where I got my copy from. If he examines the records of the Library, he will see that I did not get it from there. The hon. Gentleman should not try to be too clever. He had the House of Commons copy when we debated this matter on Second Reading.
The Lord Advocate spoke of the difficulties of defining territorial waters around Helens Reef and Hasselwood Rock, but the Government have made up their mind about the point from which they will determine these territorial waters. However, that is beside the point.
My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point, and it arises from the very nature of the geographical situation of Rockall. The Government have decided to incorporate it within Scotland and to apply the law of Scotland to it. I hope that they will not be challenged in the courts, but I think the Lord Advocate appreciates the difficulties which arise from the way in which this is being done.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I thank the Lord Advocate for his interesting arguments in justification of the Government's proposed course of action. I want to reserve judgment on that, but it is obvious from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that my proposal would not help matters, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND MEASURES

[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I beg to move,
That the Benefices Measure 1971, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed at the same time the following two Measures:
That the Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure 1971, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
That the Admission to Holy Communion Measure 1971, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The three Measures are in no way related to one another but it will save a little time if they are discussed together.
I suggest, with the approval of the House, that I should introduce the Measures briefly, giving an outline of their purpose and, if points are raised by hon. Members, perhaps I could have the leave of the House to speak again and try to answer them.
The Benefices Measure derives from the increasing use within the Church of a part-time ministry. It has long been the law that a bishop can refuse to institute to a living a priest who has been ordained for less than three years. The purpose of that is to give the bishop the right not to institute someone with insufficient experience. A part-time clergyman could well have very limited experience, and it is therefore thought to be a sensible precaution that a bishop should be able to refuse to institute a clergyman with less than three years' full-time parochial experience. I emphasise that this is only a right, and a bishop can institute anyone who is presented.
The Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure brings about a considerable change in the law. At present the incumbent is responsible in law for the maintenance of the parsonage in which he lives, but


in fact over a period of years this responsibility has been wholly taken from the incumbent. Although he is legally responsible, in fact someone else pays. That someone else may be the parish, the diocese or the Church Commissioners, and this is done through the complicated system called dilapidations. With this system the Church Commissioners have to keep for each parish in England a separate account for the money needed for repairs.
This is a singularly complex system and the suggestion is that, instead of doing it in that way, the diocese, through a parsonage board, should be made responsible for repairs to parsonage houses. This will do away with the complex system of accounts kept in Millbank, and the responsibility will be clearly placed on a single institution namely the diocese. The other rights of the incumbent are in no way altered. He is still the legal owner of the parsonage as, for the benefit of the lawyers, a corporation sole.
In the matter of alteration or of sale, there is no change in the law whatever. The only change is that he ceases to be legally responsible for repairs to the parsonage house. They are done by the diocese and in that way will be more efficiently and simply done in future.
The last of the three Measures relates to admission to Holy Communion and the purpose is to enable the General Synod to legislate by canon about the question of admission to Holy Communion.
At present the law is contained in the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 which has the force of law, and that says that only a confirmed person can legally be admitted. I am told that there is a great deal of controversy about the matter.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Or those "ready and desirous"

Mr. Worsley: I should have said that. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. The point I am making is that the word "confirmed" is used in this rubric, but there is a great deal of argument about the exact meaning of the phrase and, equally, a great desire to admit persons from other denominations to the Communion service as part of the general ecumenical movement and the movement towards intercommunion. I

am told that the clergy are disturbed in their consciences whether it is proper to admit such persons.
Therefore, after a great deal of discussion, including the report "Intercommunion Today", this suggestion has been made of a definition, and to remove this from the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer—and that the General Synod be entitled to legislate by canon. Of course they have not so legislated because they have not at present the power to do so, but they have carried a canon through what we should call Report stage, and it is all waiting to go forward. I can give more details should hon. Members require them.
I want to make it clear that the definition involved is that of baptism. Baptism in the context of this canon and the Measure is baptism with water in the name of the Holy Trinity. It is not necessary to define it because it is already defined by various case law. Better to leave it as it is.
I have cursorily introduced the three Measures. None of them was the subject of a division in the General Synod and all are the result of long and careful consideration. For those reasons I have pleasure in moving the first.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I personally welcome the Benefices Measure very much. It is a most important and fairly obvious Measure and one wonders why it has not been brought in before, because it seems absolutely essential for an incumbent to have parochial experience and pastoral experience, and essential that he should know what it is to work in a parish. I have come across cases where the incumbent has little experience in parish affairs. That is a grave disadvantage.
I hope that this will not debar a body of men in the Church who do excellent work—the Service chaplains who, certainly in my estimation, have tremendous experience of parochial and parish affairs because they deal with a very large body of men and their wives and children. Indeed, one often thinks that a person who has been a chaplain is more fitted to be a parish priest and knows more about pastoral care than probably many priests, simply because of the large numbers of men and their wives and children to whom he ministers


so faithfully. I hope that these men will not be debarred. Another category is missionaries who have been working abroad, obviously with large parishes or areas. I hope that they, too, will not be debarred.
In a strange way, this should apply to bishops and other Church dignitaries. I know of several bishops who have not had the parochial and parish experience that is necessary. In my view, if there is one thing a bishop has to have, it is that pastoral love and care. I feel that this should apply to them. If any bishops read HANSARD perhaps they will take note of this, because it is very important. What is needed in our parishes today are parish priests who have this love and pastoral care. It is vital. I therefore welcome this small Measure. I am sure it can do nothing but good.
As my hon. Friend said, the Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure represents a real change in the law. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) hopes to raise a point on it which he has brought to my attention. Some people think that it is the thin end of the wedge as regards the parson or priest and his freehold. I do not think so, although some priests in the Church are very suspicious of it.
The Interpretation Clause, Clause 31, states that
 'benefice' means the office of a rector or vicar of a parish or parishes, with cure of souls, but not including the office of a vicar in a team ministry.
I regard this as a pity. I hope that in practice it includes the office of a vicar in a team ministry because there is a growing trend of team ministries. I welcome this. It will be extremely difficult for the Church to carry on with each parish having its own incumbent, much as one would like that. I envisage team ministry work growing. I feel that a vicar in a team ministry should have the same help and protection. Perhaps, in fact, he is covered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner will be able to let us know.
The most important of the three Measures is that providing for admission to the Holy Communion by which the rubric at the end of the Order of Confirmation

shall not prevent the General Synod from making provision by Canon and regulations for the admission to the Holy Communion of other baptised persons.
I certainly welcome this. I have always felt acutely embarrassed when I have known of people who have been debarred from taking their Communion because they were not members of the Church of England. They might have been members of another denomination. I can speak with a little feeling about this because I have not been a member of the Church of England all my life. I was baptised at 21 and confirmed a year later, and I came from a non-conformist background. It is embarrassing to think that one's relatives are denied access to the Communion Table. Therefore, I regard this as a very important Measure.
After all, who are we to deny anybody the right to go to the Communion Table? Such a denial goes against all the teachings of the founder of our faith. I wonder what the founder of our faith would have said if he had been present in a church in which a person had been refused access to his Holy Table to take of the body and the blood of Christ? It is a serious step to deny anybody such a right, and I wholeheartedly welcome this Measure.
Of course, certain rules and regulations must be observed if one joins any organisation, Or society or church. but if the ecumenical movement is to go ahead—and I want to see it do so—then it is essential for Christianity to work and worship together. This, then, is a step in the right direction. I welcome these Measures and hope that they will be of great benefit to the Church in the days that lie ahead.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: I am no expert on Church matters, as will be obvious as I proceed, but since I have received a letter from a cleric in my division referring to these Measures, I thought it right that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) should hear from what I would term, even in this context, the man on the shop floor.
My correspondent complains that much of the legislation affecting clerics is insufficiently discussed by the body of the Church as a whole and he feels that this situation is very much to be


deplored. He adds that many people in his diocese were quite unaware that these Measures had been produced by the Ecclesiastical Committee. He feels that there should be a better chance of discussing with the individual parsons and preachers the various factors that arise on such Measures as these. One could almost say that it would be much easier to hold a referendum in this smaller context of important Church matters than to do so for the country as a whole.
He goes on in the letter to say that the vicars and preachers in the area are compelled to live in official residences and makes the point that they cannot afford to do otherwise. We all know that the clergy are still very badly paid, and indeed a report in one of the Sunday newspapers recently drew attention to the situation.
He points out that this is the greatest tied cottage of tied cottages. Holders of Church property, while they may hold the rights to the freehold, in fact have no rights, because power of management is taken away from them. Having read the appendix, I think this is true. He says:
The Parsonages Board will have virtually unlimited rights to alter, divide, demolish, sublet or sell vicarages or rectories despite the incumbent's right to put his point of view. The incumbent loses his right to carry out repairs including those required by the Board, in his own way, employing advisers and workmen of his choice.
That is a quotation from the letter my constituent has sent to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
We all know the dictum, "Whitehall knows best." Here the Church has taken it over and said "The Parsonages Board knows best." It applies even to the trees in the parsonage garden. While I agree with the beneficent tone of the Measure in providing the necessary money to maintain Church properties, I have to ask whether this work could not be done while permitting the incumbent to have something to say in what goes on. I hope that this will be dealt with, because it is an important point.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I am glad that a general welcome has been given so

far to these Measures. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), who is Second Church Estates Commissioner, will be able to deal with the technical points raised. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) moving and sympathetic and I agree with almost everything he said. To the point he made about Service chaplains, which was a good one and which may yet perhaps be taken note of by the Church authorities, one might add a similar comment about those clergy who have what is in some ways the most rewarding and in others the most unrewarding job of all—prison chaplains. It is an extremely difficult job.
I was in agreement with everything the hon. Gentleman said about the ecumenical movement generally. In the small country parish it is probably known which parishioners have or have not been confirmed or belong, loosely, to some other denomination. In a large town or city it is impossible for the priest to know the people who present themselves at the altar rail. I would be surprised if there were many, or even any, cases of the very disagreeable matter of which the hon. Member spoke—the actual debarring from Communion of certain people.

Mr. Peter Mills: It used to happen that applicants for Communion were refused if they were not confirmed. If they come without notice, it is easier for them to slip through, but there are these cases in which the incumbent has refused.

Mr. Driberg: Most such people would be covered by the alternative provision "ready and desirous". If the incumbent had any qualms of conscience about it, he would consult the bishop, who in most cases would take a fairly liberal view, I think, even before this Measure was passed.
There was some concern about this Measure, because there are denominations or sects whom one may describe without intolerance as being outside the mainstream of the principal Christian denominations and who practise a form of baptism. Examples are the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons, who sometimes secure baptism, by some rite of their own, on their dead ancestors. There was some apprehension that this might


lead to confusion, but the Measure as it stands is perfectly all right because it removes any responsibility for this matter from the individual incumbent and places it on the General Synod. It is purely permissive.
It is impossible for the individual incumbent to know who all the people are who present themselves at the altar rail, and whether they are confirmed or ready and desirous of being confirmed. Referring, without wishing to stir up any great argument, to a recent controversial incident, I do not suppose that the Dean of St. Paul's knew whether every member of the cast of "Hair!" had been confirmed or was ready and desirous of being confirmed when they attended the Corn-mullion service which has been the subject of some comment.
Therefore, this Measure, which is the most profoundly important of the three, is quite satisfactory in its present form, since it places the responsibility for deciding this matter on the Synod and does not itself define the word "baptise".

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I accept unreservedly the spirit of the first Measure, but am a little worried about the possible consequences of the second, relating to the repair of buildings. I believe that this can be left to the good sense and feeling within the Church, but difficulties could arise and we would need to watch this.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about the third Measure. I hope that I am not being niggling or opposing the spirit which we would all like to see in the Church, but there could be some ambiguity in it. I felt that there might be ambiguity when I read the draft canon. I should like any baptised person to have an inherent right to take Communion.
The draft canon refers to
members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed.
That might be misinterpreted. It goes on to refer to
baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to

the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church.
That might cause some ambiguity. A person who wishes to take Communion in the Church of England may not be in good standing with the other Church. I do not press this point, but it is worth hearing in mind. The canon then refers to
any other baptized persons authorised to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod.
Perhaps at a later date we can be informed precisely what those regulations are. I do not want to sound niggling about this, but it seems that the final Measure is somewhat ambiguous, and I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me on this point.
It may not be considered inappropriate, Christmas being almost upon us, if I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of the clergy. I am a member of the Church of England and I am an unashamed believer in the ecumenical movement. By that I do not mean the uniformity of church services. I believe in the unity of the Churches. Can there be a better time than this to express the hope that the Churches will come together and find common ground? In my view, these three Measures will further that belief.

Mr. Worsley: With the leave of the House, I will answer the points made by hon. Members in this interesting debate. I wish at the outset to welcome, as I am sure those who will be involved with these Measures will welcome, the way in which these provisions have been received by the House. I also respond immediately to the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), and I am sure that all hon. Members will echo his final remarks.
Dealing with the questions about benefices, arising out of the first Measure, I wish to underline that a bishop can institute any ordained clergyman, and neither this Measure nor the previous laws on the subject prevent him from ordaining. They merely give him the power, if he thinks that the person involved does not have sufficient experience, not to ordain. They will not debar a prison or Service chaplain, but the bishop has the duty


to consider whether he has sufficient experience before appointing him.
I think, that, in general, a Service chaplain would have had parochial experience in the first place. This is, therefore, an academic point. Nevertheless, I respond to what hon. Members have said on this subject by agreeing that the work of such chaplains can be as much parochial, though it is not always so; and this Measure gives a bishop the right to say whether a man has sufficient parochial experience. Reference was also made to missionaries. Parochial experience in the missionary sphere could be as much parochial in that context as it could be parochial at home.
Coming to the repair of parsonages, I will deal first with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) about the team vicar. The simple answer is that under the Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure the team vicar is not caught by this change. His house is owned by a diocesan board of finance and will continue to be so owned. This Measure does not alter that situation at all. We are concerned with parsonage houses with an incumbent occupying them. As I see it, the rector of a team ministry would be an incumbent.
On the more general point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), I shall answer him in some detail because it is very important, and I know that there has been much concern. First, on the subject of consultation, all of us in the House know well enough that we can go blue in the face discussing matters in the House and return to our constituencies to find that people have not heard anything about what has occurred. This is just as true of the Church of England as it is of parliamentary affairs. But to be fair to the Church, it makes tremendous efforts to consult at grass root levels. The new synodical machinery, which has set up deaneries where all clergy sit and to which a great number of Measures—all the more important Measures that go through—are compulsorily referred for discussion, and which has been in operation for only a couple of years, will further increase this discussion.
It is true that all clergy vote for the proctors—formerly in congregation, now in the Synod. There are elections, and those proctors ought to read the business. Perhaps, being human, they are like us. I do not know that all of us read every piece of legislation in the House. There is a human fallibility in this. But the machinery for consultation is there. The Church of England is not worse than any other similar legislative body at this sort of consultation, and it is certainly making every effort to do it better and better.
With respect, I think that my hon. Friend's constituent is taking alarm needlessly, and I will tell him why. First, I have already said that the ownership, the freehold, belongs to the incumbent. That is not altered. Second, in the matter of sale or alterations, his constituent talked as though he would have no powers in this matter. I reassure my hon. Friend that there is no change in the law in either of those respects. In as much as there is a change, it is somewhat in favour of the incumbent.
To summarise the law in this respect, for the sale or the building or purchase of a new house, the incumbent, the Church Commissioners, the bishop and the diocesan dilapidations board must agree. This is the same, omitting the bishop, for additions and alterations. The point is that the incumbent has a right to approve of any additions, alterations or sale, and that is not altered by this Measure in any respect.
It is true that there is a major change in the matter of repairs, and that the responsibility is put by law on the diocese. It is a little unlikely that many incumbents will insist on carrying out the work themselves in the way that my hon. Friend's constituent apparently wants to do. But I must tell him that what will happen is that there will be a report on each house every five years by a qualified architect. That is sent to the incumbent, who will be able to make representations on it and may meet the board or a committee of representatives of the board if he so desires. This will give him the opportunity to object if either unnecessary repairs or insufficient repairs are recommended by the surveyor. So he has the chance of speaking out. I accept that the board's decision is ultimately final,


but this is not unreasonable. We are likely to see parsonage houses very much better repaired. I accept that there is some marginal surrender to the diocese in the matter of repairs. But I do not think that repairs are the critical issue. The freehold remains and the right of the incumbent to object to a sale, a new vicarage or alterations remains. These seem to me to be the critical things.
There has been such a general welcome for the third Measure that I need say very little about it. I agree with hon. Members who have said that it is the most important. It gives the General Synod the power to make what regulations it pleases, the limitation being that it cannot draw regulations so wide—even if it wished, which I suspect it would not—as to bring in the sort of people the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) talked about, who do not believe in Trinitarian baptism. This is something much better done by the General Synod than by us. It is a process of devolution in a minor way, a proper process, and one that I support completely.

Mr. Peter Rees: How is "baptised" defined? It might be defined so narrowly as to cover only people baptised in the Church of England, in which case the Measure misfires, or so widely as to cover people who were not baptised according to rites we would regard as Trinitarian.

Mr. Worsley: "Baptised" is not defined in the proposed canon or the Measure, or in any of the other canons. The reason for not defining it is that there are in the law, the law of the land and of the Church of England, decisions which have established that, "baptism" means
baptism with water in the name of the Holy Trinity".
It has also been made clear by case law that administration by a dissenting minister, a minister not of the Church of England, or a layman in certain circumstances is good and effective, and that it therefore would be wrong to baptise again. So it is widely drawn. I could give my hon. and learned Friend at least six cases, the last being in 1844, defining what "baptism" is. Probably the ecclesiastical authorities are right not to

attempt to redefine it but to rest on the present law.

Mr. Driberg: One may be baptised in the Church of England, but one is not baptised into the Church of England; one is baptised into the entire Catholic Church, of which the Church of England is a part. Baptism can be administered, and sometimes is in emergency, not by a priest or a deacon but by a layman or, indeed, a woman or a non-Christian if the Trinitarian formula is used and water is poured.

Mr. Worsley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I think that the only points I have not covered are the concluding words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth. I have made the point that the canon which is proposed is not the only canon which could be proposed, and that we are handing over to the Synod a general power to legislate in these matters.
The most important point which my hon. Friend made concerned whether members of another church would have the right to come to Communion in the Church of England. Provided they were in good standing in their Church, and provided they had trinitarian baptism, they would have that right. As the hon. Member for Barking said, in practice one does not stand at the entrance and ask such questions, but there must be some form of regulation, and it seems to be very broadly drawn. If there is any doubt in the mind of the minister, he should go to his bishop and follow his guidance. The Church has avoided the risk that the hon. Member for Barking suggested of going too wide, but it has maintained the tradition of the Church of England of being a comprehensive Church in the canon it is proposing.
I hope that the House will approve the three Measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Benefices Measure 1971, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Resolved,
That the Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure 1971, passed by the General Synod


of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Worsley.]

Resolved,
That the Admission to Holy Communion Measure 1971, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the

form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Worsley.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.